CRIMINAL LAW – 2022 BAR EXAM QUESTIONS

1. Police officer John ran after Randy who had just killed Willy in John’s presence.
John fired at Randy in an attempt to stop him in his tracks. In response, Randy
fired back at John, hitting him. John was seriously wounded but survived due to
timely medical assistance. Randy was then charged with Frustrated Homicide.
During the trial, Randy claimed self-defense.

Is Randy’s claim of self-defense tenable? Explain briefly. (5 points)

State the Elements of Self Defense; Performance of duty is NOT unlawful

aggression.

2. Moe, Curly, and Larry were drinking and singing inside a karaoke bar when
suddenly, Buboy entered the bar and without warning, immediately shot all three
of them using a caliber .45 pistol. Thereafter, Buboy ran out of the bar to escape.
Moe, Curly, and Larry died instantly due to gunshot wounds in their heads and
bodies. With the help of eyewitnesses, Buboy was arrested. After inquest, the
prosecutor charged Buboy with three counts of Homicide.

Do you agree with the charge of Homicide against Buboy? Explain briefly.
(5 points)

No, three counts of Murder qualified by the circumstance of Treachery.

3. Michael was driving along the highway when he executed a prohibited U-Turn.
Dyords, a police officer, accosted Michael for the traffic violation. A verbal
argument ensued between them. Dyords suddenly drew his service firearm, and
pointed it at Michael. Dyords ordered Michael to alight from his car, which the
latter obeyed. Dyords then handcuffed Michael and pinned his head and body
against the pavement until he could no longer breathe. Michael died. Charged with
Homicide, Dyords interposed the exempting circumstance of accident as a defense.

If you were the judge, how would you resolve Dyords’ defense? Explain
briefly. (5 points)

Requisites of accident: lawful act, without dolo, without culpa. Arresting for traffic
violation is NOT a lawful act. He should have confiscated the license.

4. Bernardo, a mayoralty candidate of Osram City, wanted to eliminate Yori, his

political opponent. Yori announced his intention to run for mayor of the same city.
A month before the filing of candidacy, Bernardo and Benjamin met at a hotel and
discussed their plan to kill Yori on the day when he would file his certificate of
candidacy. Based on their agreement, Bernardo would provide the guns and the
money, while Benjamin would provide the personnel to cordon off all roads leading
to the COMELEC’s local office.

On the day of the execution of the plan, however, Benjamin flew to Manila to avoid
being involved in the planned killing of Yori. Bernardo, determined to kill Yori,
 convened his own armed group and laid out a new plan to kill Yori, and in
accordance with it, his armed group patrolled all the roads leading to the
COMELEC’s local office. Bernardo remained in his house and monitored the
execution of the plan from there. As soon as Yori and his supporters passed by the
main road at around 2:00 p.m., Bernardo’s armed group opened fire at them.

Yori was unharmed as he was inside a bulletproof vehicle, but ten of his supporters
were killed. Bernardo, the members of his armed group, and Benjamin were later
charged with ten counts of Murder for the death of Yori’s supporters and one count
of Attempted Murder of Yori.

Discuss the criminal liability for the crimes charged against each of the
following: (i) Bernardo, (ii) the members of Bernardo’s armed group, and
(iii) Benjamin. Explain briefly. (5 points)

 BERNARDO and his ARMED GROUP – collective responsibility; Aberratio Ictus

 BENJAMIN - Principal by Inducement

If the crimes committed against the target victim and third person, who was hit by
reason of aberratio ictus, were produced by a single act, the accused is liable for a
complex crime. Thus, a single act of throwing a grenade or firing a gun killing one
and injuring another constitutes a complex crime of murder with attempted
murder. (People v. Julio Guillen, G.R. No. L-1477, January 18, 1950; People vs.
Bendecio, G.R. No. 235016, September 08, 2020). However, the accused is
liable for separate crimes despite the application of the aberratio ictus
rule, and not a complex crime in the following cases: (a) If the bullet that
killed the target victim is different from the bullet that killed the third person, who
was hit by reason of aberratio ictus (Cruz vs. People, G.R. No. 216642, September
8, 2020, Justice Caguioa)

5. A police officer responded to a disturbance call at around 1:30 p.m. in an

apartment in Quezon City. Upon his arrival, the police officer encountered Sisa
stabbing her 1-year old child with a kitchen knife. The police officer grabbed Sisa
and the latter threw the knife on the floor. Sisa was immediately taken into
custody. Despite suffering multiple stab wounds on her back, the child survived.
During the trial, Sisa insisted that she can only be held liable for Attempted
Parricide because she voluntarily desisted when she threw down the knife.

Is Sisa’s contention tenable? Explain briefly. (5 points)

Elements of Attempted Parricide; The desistance is voluntary and not

spontaneous. The term spontaneous is not equivalent to voluntary. Even if the
desistance is voluntary, the same could not exempt the offender from liability for
an attempted felony if there is an external constraint. The term “spontaneous”
means proceeding from natural feeling or native tendency without external
constraint; it is synonymous with impulsive, automatic, and mechanical (People v.
Lizada, G.R. Nos. 143468-71, January 24, 2003, En Banc).
 Moreover, spontaneous desistance is a defense in attempted felony. If there is
spontaneous desistance, she could not be held liable for attempted parricide.

6. Anna and Barbara, while working inside their sari-sari store, saw Javier and Jorge
robbing an elderly woman of her purse and brutally beating her to death. Anna
and Barbara immediately ran outside and, when they tried to help the elderly
woman, Javier and Jorge stabbed both of them. Thereafter, Javier and Jorge ran
away with the elderly woman’s purse. Anna suffered one stab wound which
punctured her lung, but she survived due to timely medical assistance. Barbara,
however, died as a result of nine stab wounds, one of which pierced through her
spleen.

If you were the prosecutor, what crime/s will you file against Javier and
Jorge for: (i) the death of the elderly woman, (ii) the death of Barbara,
and (iii) the injuries sustained by Anna? Explain briefly. (5 points)

Robbery with homicide. Physical injuries shall be integrated into the special
complex crime of robbery with homicide.

In this special complex crime, it is immaterial that several persons are killed. It is
also immaterial that aside from the homicides, rapes are committed by reason or
on the occasion of the robbery. Hence, rapes committed against X, Y and Z in the
course of robbery shall be integrated into one and indivisible felony of robbery with
homicide. (People vs. Daguman, G.R. No. 219116, August 26, 2020). In robbery
with homicide, the victim of the robbery need not be the victim of the homicide,
(People vs. Daguman, G.R. No. 219116, August 26, 2020) and it is immaterial that
the victim of homicide is a bystander (People vs. Barut, G.R. No. L-42666 March
13, 1979), a responding policeman (People vs. Pelagio, G.R. No. L-16177, May 24,
1967) or one of the robbers (People vs. Casabuena, G.R. No. 246580, June 23,
2020).

7. Jesusa, a mayoralty candidate of the Municipality of Jaen, Nueva Ecija during the
2019 local elections, was ambushed and gunned down by Jhudas, a gun for hire.
Jhudas was arrested at a COMELEC checkpoint just after the incident.

The firearm he used, a baby Armalite, was verified to be without any license.
During the interrogation, Jhudas admitted that Pontio, the rival mayoralty
candidate of Jesusa, paid him Php 1,000,000.00 to assassinate Jesusa. Due to
Jhudas’ admission, coupled with the sworn statement of an eyewitness, the
prosecutor filed two Informations, one for Murder and one for Illegal Possession of
Firearm, against both Jhudas and Pontio. Do you agree with the prosecutor’s
charges against Jhudas and Pontio?

Explain briefly. (5 points)

One information for murder with special aggravating circumstance of using loose
firearm (Section 29 of RA No. 10591) should have been filed and not two
Informations.
8. Jenny obtained a fire insurance from YG Insurance Co. (YG). In payment of the
policy, she issued a postdated check payable to cash in the amount of Php
15,000.00 which was handed to Lisa, YG’s sales agent. Lisa did not remit the
check to YG. Instead, Lisa deposited it in her husband’s bank account, but the
check was dishonored for having been drawn from a closed account.

What crime, if any, was committed by Lisa and, if there was any, what is
its prescribed penalty? Explain briefly. (5 points)

Impossible crime of theft (Jacinto v. People, G.R. No. 162540, July 13, 2009.

9. Madame X, with the promise of money, and without the use of force, intimidation,
or threat, enticed Zia, a 15-year-old, to engage in oral sex by allowing Madame X
to lick Zia’s vagina. Zia consented because she needed the money.

What crime, if any, was committed by Madame X? Explain briefly. (5

points)

Statutory rape and child prostitution. Section 5, if the child exploited in

prostitution is under 16 years of age, he shall be prosecuted for rape under the
Revised Penal Code.

Having sexual intercourse with the offended party, who is under 16 years of age,
is statutory rape. If the child is under 16 years old, and the act of the offender
constitutes rape and sexual abuse, the accused shall be prosecuted for graver
crime of statutory rape under the Revised Penal Code. Under Section 5 (b) of RA
No. 7610 as amended by RA No. 11648, when the child subjected to sexual abuse
is under 16 years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted for rape.

10. During the 2022 national elections, Bern posted on her Facebook page a
statement that Alfredo, an incumbent mayor vying for re-election, has a pending
corruption case with the Sandiganbayan for pocketing Php 20,000,000.00 of public
funds under his custody. Czarina, Bern’s friend, saw the post and commented
online, stating: “Bhie, true yan. Alfredo is so corrupt. Marami ding binabahay yan.
Sugarol pa!” Donnabel, also Bern’s friend, reacted to Bern’s post by clicking the
“like” button. Another person, Justine, who is a stranger to Bern and her friends,
but who claims to be a crusader for good governance, came across the said post.
Finding it relevant to her advocacy and crusade, Justine shared the link to Bern’s
post on her Twitter account.

Who among Bern, Czarina, Donnabel, and Justine, if any, are liable for the
crime of Cyberlibel? Explain briefly. (5 points)

Bern, not liable. Privilege communication, Article 354 of RPC;

Czarina – Cyberlibel.
Donnabel – Not Liable; Disini v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 203335, February
18, 2014
11. On May 15, 2013 at around 3:00 a.m., Lucy, Mary, and Raphael were on
board a passenger jeepney, with Raphael behind the wheel. They were traversing
the highway on the southbound lane. Meanwhile, a Virgen Bus, driven by Kiko,
was traveling along the northbound lane. Kiko overtook the vehicle in front of him,
which caused him to occupy the opposite lane where the jeepney was on. With the
Virgen Bus traveling at a high speed, Raphael tried to avoid the collision but failed.
The bus hit the jeepney which resulted in Raphael’s death, serious physical injuries
to Lucy and Mary, and extensive damage to the jeepney amounting to Php
500,000.00.

The public prosecutor filed two Informations charging Kiko for two separate
offenses: (i) Reckless Imprudence resulting in Serious Physical Injuries for the
injuries suffered by the passengers; and (ii) Reckless Imprudence resulting in
Homicide and Damage to Property for Raphael’s death and the damage to the
jeepney.

Is the public prosecutor correct? Explain briefly. (5 points)

Single information for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide, physical injuries

and damage to property should have been filed (Ivler v. Modesto-San Pedro,
G.R. No. 172716, November 17, 2010).

12. Sometime in 2011, while police officers were conducting a foot patrol in
connection with the report of rampant illegal activities in the area, police officer
Pepe saw Raul inside a small shanty holding a disposable syringe. Being a police
officer for almost 15 years and having previously made more than ten arrests
involving possession of drug paraphernalia, Pepe entered through the open door of
Raul’s shanty and arrested him. Inside the shanty, 23 more pieces of disposable
syringes and empty ampules were seized from Raul. Pepe immediately marked the
seized items, took photographs thereof, and conducted an inventory in the
presence of Raul, a barangay kagawad, a representative from the Department of
Justice (DOJ), and a media practitioner. The seized items were turned over to the
evidence custodian, who kept them in a sealed container in the police station.

During the trial of Raul for the crime of Illegal Possession of Drug Paraphernalia,
police officer Pepe, the sole witness for the prosecution, testified as narrated
above. After which, the prosecution rested its case. The defense did not present
any evidence.

If you were the judge, would you convict or acquit Raul for the crime
charged? Explain briefly. (5 points)

RA 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act; Acquit (People vs. Cuico,
G.R. No. 232293, December 09, 2020, Justice Caguioa).
In particular, in cases involving dangerous drugs, in order to hurdle the
constitutional presumption of innocence, the prosecution has the burden to prove
compliance with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21, Article II of
RA 9165, to wit: (1) the seized items must be inventoried and photographed
immediately after seizure or confiscation; (2) the physical inventory and
 photographing must be done in the presence of (a) the accused or his/her
representative or counsel, (b) an elected public official, (c) a representative from
the media, and (d) a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), all of
whom shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy of
the same; and (3) the seized drugs or drug paraphernalia must be turned over to
a forensic laboratory within twenty-four (24) hours from confiscation for
examination.

Strict compliance with the foregoing requirements is necessary in protecting the

integrity and identity of the corpus delicti, without which the crime of the illegal
sale, or illegal possession of dangerous drugs or drug paraphernalia cannot be
proved beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, non-compliance with Section 21
is tantamount to a failure to establish an essential element of the crime, and will
therefore engender the acquittal of the accused.

In People v. Taboy, one of the reasons cited by the Court in ruling that the charge
of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia could not prosper was that "there was
no indication that [the police officer] properly turned over the alleged
paraphernalia to the crime laboratory, as the request for laboratory examination
pertained only to the seized drug from accused-appellant."

13. Joben, a school principal, called high school students Paula and Gina, both
15 years old, to the faculty room regarding the sexual text message circulating
around campus which made reference to Joben’s daughter. In front of teachers
and some students, Joben shouted at Paula and Gina, asking them who sent the
said text message. Joben also threatened to sue them and said: “Siguro nainggit
kayo sa anak ko kasi maganda sya, matalino at mayaman. Sabihin nyo kasi sa
mga magulang nyo magsumikap sila para maging mayaman din kayo. Di yung
tatamad-tamad.” Joben then raised her middle finger in front of Paula and Gina,
saying “Mga burikat (whore)!”

Later that day, Paula and Gina narrated the incident to their parents and said that
they were ashamed of going back to school.

Is Joben guilty of violating Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610 for
other acts of child abuse? Explain briefly. (5 points)

Not liable. No intent to degrade, debased and demean (Brinas vs. People, G.R.
No. 254005, June 23, 2021).

In Brinas vs. People, G.R. No. 254005, June 23, 2021, accused, a directress of
Montessori school, uttered "pinakamalalandi, pinakamalilibog, pinakamahadera at
hindot, Mga putang ina kayo” against two minor students. Accused’s acts were
only done in the heat of anger, made after she had just learned that the
complainants had deceivingly used her daughter's name to send a text message to
another student, in what accused thought was part of a bigger and harmful
scheme against the student body. The accused was acquitted of child abuse for
failure to prove intent to degrade the complainants.
14. On February 25, 2019, Bob approached Edward to borrow Php 100,000.00
purportedly to settle some obligations, promising that he would pay the loan using
a postdated check. Convinced by Bob's promises of repayment with interest, and
because of their closeness as former classmates in high school, Edward agreed to
lend the said amount. As payment, Bob made, drew, issued in favor of, and
delivered to Edward in the latter's residence at No. 112 Maria Orosa St., Ermita,
Manila, CBC Savings Bank Check No. 32710 postdated August 25, 2019 in the
amount of Php 105,000.00. When the check was presented for payment on its due
date in CBC Savings Bank Quezon City Branch, it was dishonored due to: “Drawn
Against Insufficient Funds” (DAIF). On January 22, 2020, Edward sent a demand
letter to Bob to pay the face value of the check, but said demand, although
received by Bob, was not heeded. Hence, the check remained unpaid, with no
arrangement for its payment.

Draft the appropriate Information, complete with caption and title,

charging Bob for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. (5 points)

Draft the Information.

15. In 2003, the Province of Davao del Sur purchased two vehicles for the use of
the Governor and Vice Governor, respectively. The purchase requests, which were
all signed by Luis as then Governor of the province, requested for the acquisition
of one unit of Ford Ranger XLT 4x4 and one unit of Toyota Hilux 4x4. The
procurement of the subject vehicles did not undergo competitive public bidding as
it was effected through direct purchase. The mode of procurement was approved
by the members of the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) of the province. The
two vehicles were delivered to the provincial government, and after inspection and
acceptance by the concerned officials, payments were issued to the suppliers.

Subsequently, a complaint was filed by a concerned citizen before the Office of the
Ombudsman-Mindanao (OMB) claiming that the purchase of the provincial
government violated the procurement law. The OMB, after due investigation,
verified that the provincial government did not comply with the required procedure
of the procurement law. Based on this finding, the OMB filed with the
Sandiganbayan an Information against Luis and the members of the BAC for
violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019. The Sandiganbayan found Luis
and the members of the BAC guilty on the sole reason that violation of the
procurement law constitutes evident bad faith and manifest partiality on the part
of the accused.

Is the Sandiganbayan correct? Explain briefly. (5 points)

Not liable for violation of RA No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).

A violation of a law (e.g., a law on public bidding) that is not penal in nature does
not, as it cannot, automatically translate into a violation of Section 3(e) of RA No.
3019 (Concurring opinion of Justice Caguioa, Villarosa vs. People, G.R. Nos.
233155-63, June 23, 2020).
Violations of the applicable procurement laws (that generally required public
bidding) do not mean that the elements of the crime under Section 3 (e) of RA
No. 3019 are already present as a matter of course.

For there to be a violation under Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019 based on a breach
of applicable procurement laws, one cannot solely rely on the mere fact that a
violation of procurement laws has been committed. It must be shown that (1) the
violation of procurement laws caused undue injury to any party or gave any
private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference; and (2) the accused
acted with evident bad faith, manifest partiality, or gross inexcusable negligence
(Martel vs. People, G.R. No. 224720-23, February 2, 2021, Justice Caquioa) such
as awarding contract without public bidding to a relative (Cabrera v. People, G.R.
Nos. 191611-14, July 29, 2019; People v. Austria, G.R. 243897, June 08, 2020) or
involving overpriced fire extinguishers and the supplies. (Oani v. People, G.R. No.
139984, March 31, 2005).