CRIM 3: SPECIAL PENAL LAWS (CHUA)

FINALS SAMPLEX COMPILATION

“Why would you agree with a wrong answer?”

Author’s Notes: Finals q’s = sa taas, MT q’s = sa baba. Blue = author’s notes/directions Red = Sir’s corrections Green = on bonus items

Question Answer Law Notes Reference

1. Which of the ff. is ● BP 22 No indiv 2015 Dec. 15

false? Explain why A. In BP22, judges can impose the penalty of imprisonment ● Forfeiture score 2C Exam (the one
the others are true. even for first-time offenders. = TRUE ● Anti-Money from Blessings)
a. In BP 22 cases, judges are given the discretion Laundering (AMLA)
(There are 4 to decide on whether or not imprisonment or fine ● Anti-Hazing Total Score: 88
statements, A to D) should be imposed. This is true even for first- but there were 3
time offenders. “bonus” questions
out of 10 questions
B. Forfeiture cases do not prescribe. = TRUE (one of which is “10
a. Prescription cannot run against the State. pts for taking this
b. The 1987 Constitution expressly provides that exam”).
prescription shall not apply on the forfeiture of ill-
gotten wealth. No individual per-
question scores
C. Conviction of the offender under the Anti-Money
Laundering Act (AMLA) shall not bar the same person
for the predicate crime committed. = TRUE
a. Money laundering itself is an independent
offense which is punished separately from the
predicate crime.
b. Though money laundering involves proceeds of
a predicate crime, it is a crime by itself. Thus,
conviction under AMLA does not bar conviction
for the predicate crime and conviction for the
predicate crime does not bar conviction for
AMLA.

1
 D. D. Physical contact is prohibited under the Hazing
Regulation Act. = FALSE

2. Give 5 different acts A. Possession of dangerous drugs or essential precursors. Dangerous Drugs No indiv 2015 Dec. 15
penalized under the a. Possession of dangerous drugs gives rise to the score 2C Exam (the one
Comprehensive presumption of knowledge. from Blessings)
Dangerous Drugs Act of b. Mere possession is punished because such Emphas
2002. Briefly explain crime is malum prohibitum. is mine Total Score: 88
each. but there were 3
B. Financing the production/distribution/warehousing of “bonus” questions
dangerous drugs and essential precursors out of 10 questions
a. The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act (one of which is “10
(CDDA) of 2002 punishes the financiers or those pts for taking this
who support the manufacturing or selling of exam”).
dangerous drugs by financial assistance by
giving them money for production or other No individual per-
assets. question scores

C. Importing/Attempting to import dangerous drugs or

essential precursors.
a. Punishes the entry into the Philippines of
Dangerous Drugs from other countries.

D. Protecting persons guilty of manufacturing and sale of

drugs
a. Punishes local officials and peace officers who
protect or tolerate the production and sale of
drugs

E. Selling/Distribution of dangerous drugs

a. Punished by the law regardless of quantity and
type of drug.
b. What is important is the delivery of pusher to
buyer.

2
3. Juan was convicted of The penalty from Juan will be from the minimum term of prison ● ISL No indiv 2015 Dec. 15
homicide which mayor, any period, to the maximum term of reclusion temporal, ● RPC Modifying score 2C Exam (the one
prescribes the penalty of in its minimum period. Circumstances from Blessings)
reclusion temporal. He The maximum is set at the minimum period of reclusion ● RPC Homicide
pleaded guilty before the temporal because of the presence of one ordinary mitigating Total Score: 88
presentation of circumstance, which is the confession of guilt. Applying the ISL, but there were 3
evidence. Applying the the maximum term is set at its minimum period. “bonus” questions
Indeterminate Sentence out of 10 questions
Law (ISL), what is the The minimum term is set at the penalty one degree lower than (one of which is “10
appropriate penalty? the imposable penalty. However, following the numerous rulings pts for taking this
Explain your answer. of the SC, the current practice is to set the minimum term at any exam”).
period of the penalty one degree lower than that imposed.
Therefore, the minimum term of Juan’s sentence is any period No individual per-
of prison mayor. question scores

Final sentence: minimum term of prison mayor (min/med/max)

to maximum term of maximum period of reclusion temporal (17
yrs, 4 months, and 1day - 20 yrs)

4. Chavit and Che, both A case for child abuse under RA 7610 (Special Protection of ● RA 7610 (Special No indiv 2015 Dec. 15
married, are living under Children Against Abuse, Exploitation, and Discrimination) can Protection of score 2C Exam (the one
one roof with their be filed against Chavit. Children Against from Blessings)
spouses. Chavit, in the Abuse, etc.)
presence of Che, would Physical abuse committed against children is expressly ● VAWC Total Score: 88
beat up his 12-year-old punished by said law. Since the child was only 12 years old, ● Laws on but there were 3
kid with his shot gun he/she is covered by RA 7610. Possession/Use/etc. “bonus” questions
every time he is drunk. Of Firearms out of 10 questions
What are the cases that The repeated violence committed against the child is an (one of which is “10
may be filed against obvious manifestation of the hostile environment that he/she is pts for taking this
Chavit? Explain your in and greatly impedes his/her growth. exam”).
answer.
On the part of Che, the witness, she cannot file any case No individual per-
(same as our MT Q4, against Chavit, except that for child abuse in favor of the child. question scores
see next item)
Though she may suffer from psychological abuse caused by the
sight of the battering, her case is not protected by the Violence

3
 Against Women and Their Children Law (VAWC) for the
essential relationship between her and Chavit is not present.
The child is not also hers.
Given that it is not her child, she is not protected by VAWC.

Moreover, Chavit can be held liable for illegal possession of

firearm if the shotgun he uses is unlicensed.

5. Raymart and Jodi, 14/20 OUR MT

both married, are living Raymart can be charged with violation of the Special Protection ● RA 7610 (Special Q4
under one roof. Raymart, Against Child Abuse Law. This is because he created an Protection of Red:
in the presence of Jodi, environment detrimental to the safety and development of his Children Against correctio
would beat up his 12 child by habitually physically abusing the latter. Abuse, etc.) n notes
year old kid with his shot ● VAWC from Sir
gun every time he is Raymart can also be charged with light, less serious, or serious
drunk. What are the physical injuries under the Revised Penal Code depending on
cases that may be filed the resulting injuries inflicted by him to his child. This would not
against Raymart? constitute double jeopardy, as the prosecution of this offense is
Explain your answer. (20 under a law distinct from the Special Protection Against Child
points) Abuse Law, a special penal law.

Raymart cannot be charged with violation of the Anti-Violence

Against Women and Children Act, with regards to Jodi, because
the victims contemplated under this act are either the woman
with whom the offender has sexual or dating relations, or with
whom he has a common child, or his wife, or his former wife, or
such woman’s child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, whether
cohabitating or not. Here, the 12 year old kid is Raymart’s own
child with another woman who is not Jodi. Thus, a case against
Raymart for violation of the Anti-Violence Against Women and
Children Act, with regards to Jodi, cannot prosper.

6. (see question 4 A case for Child Abuse may be filed against Chavit. Under this ● RA 7610 (Special 10/? 2018 Jun 8
above, on Chavit and special law of Anti-Child Abuse, maltreatment of children below Protection of 2AA FINALS
Che) Children Against Total Score: 73

4
 18 years of age by causing physical harm or suffering is what Abuse, etc.)
constitutes chidl abuse. ● VAWC No questionnaire
Chavit, by beating up his own kid with a shotgun is a form of ● Laws on
child abuse. Possession/Use/etc Items known: 5
. of Firearms Bonus items
Chavit has also committed Illegal Use of Firearm by beating up known: 2
his kid using the shotgun. However, since the use of the (Hypothesis:
shotgun is inherent in the abuse or maltreatment of the kid, this 1. What SPL
is considered as an aggravating circumstance. would you
amend?
Chavit cannot be prosecuted for Violation of the Women and max known
Children because under the law, the harm or suffering should points: 15
be inflicted to Chavit’s wife, former wife, a woman who he had a 2. Rate this
common child, a woman he had a sexual/dating relationship. class from
The 12-year-old kid is his own. Under VAWC, the child should 0-5 based
be the woman’s, or in this case, Che. on the
professor,
facilities,
and
syllabus.
Max known
points: 10)

7. Osama is under Osama can file a case of Illegal Access, under the Cybercrime ● Cybercrime No indiv 2015 Dec. 15
surveillance for drug Law, against Barrack. ● Anti-Wiretapping score 2C FINALS (the
pushing. Barrack used (maybe) one from Blessings)
high-tech devices to get The Cybercrime Law punishes illegal access to information ● ATL (maybe
information from the privately stored in computers and in the internet. maybe) Total Score: 88
laptop of Osama. Using but there were 3
the information from the By obtaining the information without the proper authority from “bonus” questions
laptop, Barrack was able the court, Barrack is guilt of violating the Cybercrime Law. out of 10 questions
to set up a buy bust (one of which is “10
operation where Osama Moreover, if the high-tech devices used by Barrack allowed him pts for taking this
and his men were to obtain recordings or transcripts of conversations from exam”).
arrested. Osama found Osama’s laptop, he can also be liable under the Anti-
out that there was no Wiretapping Law. No individual per-

5
court order issues question scores
authorizing Barrack to
conduct surveillance and
get information from his
laptop. What are the
possible cases that may
be filed? Explain your
answer.

8. (I’m pretty sure this is A case of Illegal Access or Illegal use of information from a ● Cybercrime Law 12/? 2018 Jun 8
the same question, but computer system, device, or gadget under the Cybercrime Law ● RA 9165: 2AA FINALS
in an exam three years may be filed against Donald. Comprehensive Total Score: 73
later) Dangerous Drugs
The act of accessing or obtaining information from the laptop of Act of 2002 No questionnaire
Kim unlawfully, without a court order, constitutes a violation of
the Cybercrime Law. Items known: 5
Bonus items
Donald is under no authority to use and obtain such information known: 2
even if he has probable cause in conducting the surveillance for
drug pushing and that the information from the laptop to set-up
the buy-bust is relevant.

A case for Drug Pushing may be filed against Kim and his men.
The buy-bust operation is conducted such that the accused has
been caught in flagrante delicto or upon circumstances that
would warrant an apprehending officer that crime under RA
9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) has been
committed or is being committed. In a buy-bust operation, a
warrantless arrest and seizure can be done even without a
court order.

8.1 (Might be the In this case, a violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 Comprehensive 14/20(?) 2018 Dec
same/similar as above) may be filed against Kim and his men because a buy-bust Dangerous Drugs FINALS
operation was set up against them. Kim and his men may be Act of 2002
held liable for the sale of dangerous drugs which is one of the Cybercrime Law 4 essay questions
punishable acts under said law aside from possession, use, (maybe 20 points

6
 importation of drugs, maintenance of dens, dive, and resort, each) + 4 multiple
slae, use or manufacture of equipment for production of choice (5 points
dangerous drugs and other essential chemicals, possession of each) + 1 bonus
drugs during parties and social gatherings. (Sir highlighted this question (Rate this
and put a question mark on top, probably because it’s not class on a scale of
relevant) 1-10. What did you
Kim and his men may also be possibly liable for importation of like most? What did
dangerous drugs, maintenance of den, dive, and resort, or the you like least? =
sale or manufacture of equipment for production of dangerous maybe worth 10
drugs if proven by sufficient evidence during trial points)

Another case which may be filed is a violation of the No questionnaire

Cybercrime Act since Donald used high-tech devices to get
information from the laptop of Kim. In this case, since Donald
was not able to procure a court order authorizing Donald to
conduct such act, the said act of using high-tech devices to get
information from the laptop of Kim may constitute as an illegal
access to unlawfully take information from Kim’s laptop
punishable under the Cybercrime Law.

9. Vicky runs a cosmetic Vicky did not violate any laws. Her act is close to that Anti-Sexual No indiv 2015 Dec. 15
clinic. She went to punishable under the Anti-Sexual Harassment Law, but it lacks Harassment score 2C FINALS (the
Makati Medical Center to the essential element of moral ascendency. one from Blessings)
have her eyes checked.
While waiting, she saw First, Vicky is not the boss or employer of Hayden. She Total Score: 88
Hayden who was at that exercises no control over the latter. but there were 3
time an intern. Vicky “bonus” questions
asked a staff to Second, the relationship was not made a condition for the out of 10 questions
introduce her to Hayden. employment of Hayden. She merely promised to talk to her (one of which is “10
Vicky told Hayden that friend and such is not the situation contemplated by the law. pts for taking this
she likes him and wants exam”).
to have a relationship. In
return, Vicky said she No individual per-
would talk to the chief of question scores
staff of the hospital, who
happens to be her friend,

7
to hire Hayden. Did
Vicky violate any laws?
Explain your answer.

10. (Might be same Vicky did not violate any laws. Her acts do not constitute sexual Anti-Sexual 10/? 2018 Jun 8
as/similar to the above.) harassment because Vicky does not have a moral ascendancy Harassment 2AA FINALS
or influence over Hayden and is not the latter’s employee, Emphas Total Score: 73
employer, trainor, administrator, supervisor. Vicky is a PATIENT is mine,
at the Makati Medical Center. There was no demand, request, because No questionnaire
or requirement of any sexual favor or advancement from Vicky they
as well. make a Items known: 5
Their relationship is not connected to a working, educational, or good Bonus items
training environment. Vicky has merely promised to talk to her point. known: 2
friend, the Chief of Staff of the hospital. Her acts did not create
a hostile, obscene, or influential environment.
Therefore, since the consideration is from Vicky, an
acquaintance to Hayden, for his hiring and there was no sexual
favor requested, Vicky did not violate the Anti-Sexual
Harassment Act.

11. (See below for a The defenses interposed by Charlie are incorrect. RA 3019 Anti-Graft and 13/20(?) 2018 Dec
similar problem, but this Corrupt Practices Act FINALS
one has higher marks. First, Charlie argued that he is a private citizen and therefore he Sir cut
Note the difference in cannot be held liable under the said act. The argument of this 4 essay questions
facts.) Charlie is wrong because under RA 3019, the private person person (maybe 20 points
who conspired with or did any punishable act under RA 3019 off each) + 4 multiple
shall be held liable together with the public official. halfway, choice (5 points
because each) + 1 bonus
However, it is not in all cases that the private person be held the
liable with the public official. It may happen that the private answer No questionnaire
person alone be held liable. For instance the private person took two
gave a gift of significant value to the public official in exchange pages.
for a favor in relation to his office but the public official declined
the gift, the only the private person may be punished under RA
3019.

8
The second argument that the resort owners did not give him
the 100M pesos is immaterial because what is punished here is
the act of Charlie of getting them permits right away if they will
give him 100M pesos which need not be consummated to be
punished under RA 3019.

The third argument of Charlie that Bernadette knew nothing

about his transactions with the resort owners is also immaterial
because Charlie need not be held liable together with a public
official in order that he may be punished under the Act. He
alone, a private person, may be held liable for the act
committed by him in contravention of the law.

The fourth argument of Charlie that Bernadette is not his

spouse nor his relative within the third civil degree is also wrong
because under RA 3019, a person with a “close personal
relationship” with the public official to commit such unlawful
business transactions are also punished. Those who have a
“close personal relationship” with the public official include best
friends, boyfriends, etc.

Lastly, Charlie’s argument that Bernadette is only the Tourism

Secretary and RA 3019 only covers spouses and relatives with
the third civil degree of the President, VP, Senate Pres., and
House Speaker is also wrong because such prohibition is only
one section of the law. There are numerous prohibited acts
provided for under RA 3019 and the unlawful business
transactions of Charlie fall under the prohibited acts provided
for in RA 3019 notwithstanding the fact that Bernadette is not
the spouse or a relative within the third civil degree of the
President.

Also, it is not true that RA 3019 only covers persons who are
either the spouse, and relative within the third civil degree of the
President, VP, Senate, Pres., and House Speaker because any
public official and/or private persons may be punished under

9
 RA 3019 as long as he/she does the prohibited acts thereof

11.1 Joey is the owner of No, both Joe and Joey are not liable under any Special Penal RA 3019 Anti-Graft and No indiv 2015 Dec. 15
a big company that Law. Corrupt Practices Act score 2C FINALS (the
transacts with the one from Blessings)
government since 1980. Although RA 3019 expressly prohibits the relative of a House
Joe, Joey’s father, Speaker from taking positions or entering transactions with the Total Score: 88
became the speaker in government, this admits of exceptions. but there were 3
2007. In 2008, Joey “bonus” questions
made a bid and won a Joey is exempted from said provision since he has already out of 10 questions
contract worth $300M to been transacting with the government since 1980, or 27 years (one of which is “10
automate the 2010 before his father became House Speaker. pts for taking this
national elections. Is The fact that he was already doing business with the exam”).
Joey liable under any government then evidences that he got the 2008 contract not
special penal law? How with favor or undue influence. No individual per-
about Joe? Explain your question score
answer. On the part of Joe, House Speaker, he is also not liable but he
should divert himself of interest in the big company and abstain
from voting.

12. (Might be same Joy is liable under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. RA 3019 Anti-Graft and 9/? 2018 Jun 8
as/similar to above) Under the law, relatives in consanguinity or affinity, spouse, Corrupt Practices Act 2AA FINALS
children of the President, VP, Senate Pres., Speaker of the Total Score: 73
House of Representatives are prohibited from entering
transacting, or dealing with the Government or any of its No questionnaire
agencies.
Items known: 5
Joy, being the daughter of Sonny, the Speaker of the House of Bonus items
Representatives, entered into a government contract after the known: 2
assumption of office Sonny. The circumstances do not qualify in
any of the exceptions provided in the law.

Sonny is also liable under Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

A contract for infrastructure worth $300M requires the
intervention of the legislature and approval of the House of
Representatives. Joy winning the bid when SOnny knew his

10
 daughter’s company is involved is an act punishable under the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

13. None. In a BP 22 case, the elements of the punishable act of issuing a BP 22 Bouncing 16/20(?) 2018 Dec
bad check are: Checks FINALS
1. The issuing, making, or drawing of a check
2. Knowledge of insufficiency of funds to make good the 4 essay questions
check (maybe 20 points
3. The subsequent dishonor due to lack of funds or stop each) + 4 multiple
payment payment order w/o justifiable reason thereof choice (5 points
In this case, Dupaya may be held liable under the Bouncing each) + 1 bonus
Checks Law because the three elements are present.
The second element of knowledge is presumed since Dupaya No questionnaire
was not able to maintain sufficient funds on her account up to
the maturity date. Also, there was no agreement between Cruz
and Dupaya that Cruz allows the deference of the deposit of the
check and despite subsequent demands to pay, Dupaya was
unable to do so. The Bouncing Checks Law punishes an act
that is malum prohibitum. The gravamen of the crime is the
mere issuance of the check.
Hence Dupaya may be held liable.

13. None, but see Dupaya is not guilty of violating of BP 22 (Bouncing Checks). BP 22 Bouncing 7/? 2018 Jun 8
above. May be a The law provides that the issuance of a check for value or Checks 2AA FINALS
similar/the same consideration knowing that the account from which it will be Emphas Total Score: 73
question. drawn is insufficient in funds and the same was dishonored is mine
upon presentment is punishable. No questionnaire
The Bounding Checks Law is malum prohibitum, the mere
issuance of a worthless check is what is prohibited. Items known: 5
All the elements are not present: Bonus items
1. Dupaya issued a check known: 2
2. Dupaya knew that her funds are insufficient to cover for
the amount of the check and the same was presented
within 90 days from issuance by deposit.
3. There was a demand to pay but no NOTICE OF
DISHONOR was given.

11
 The facts are wanting of the last requisite.

A notice of dishonor should be given in writing by the offended

party, Cruz, or the drawee bank to Dupaya, the drawer of the
check. It is only upon a notice of dishonor that the accused will
be informed of the non-acceptance and that 5 days will be given
to Dupaya to make good on her obligations.

14. BONUS: 2015 Dec. 15

2C Exam (the one
a. If you were a from Blessings)
member of
Congress, what Total Score: 88
specific provision of but there were 3
a special penal law “bonus” questions
discussed in class out of 10 questions
would you amend. (one of which is “10
Explain. pts for taking this
b. How will you exam”).
evaluate the class?
What did you like No individual per-
the most? What did question scores
you like the least?
c. 10 points for taking
this exam.

15. Under Article 211 of ● ISL 14/20 OUR MT

the Revised Penal Code, As the judge, I will impose an indeterminate sentence ● RPC Modifying Q1
the prescribed penalty constituting a specific point in time at my discretion within 4 Circumstances Red:
for Indirect Bribery is months, 11 days (should be 1 day) to 2 years, 4 months as the ● RPC Indirect correctio
prision correccional in its minimum, and another point in time within 2 years, 4 months, 1 Bribery n notes
medium and maximum day to 3 years, 6 months, 20 days as the maximum. 2 years is a from Sir
periods and public possible minimum. Should include public censure, which was
censure. The following given.
were duly alleged and
proven: The Indeterminate Sentence Law applies here because Pedro’s

12
 case is not under any of the disqualifications. Under this law,
(a) Pedro is a public the applicable rules for crimes under the Revised Penal Code
officer in charge of are that the maximum of the indeterminate sentence is that
procurement. penalty which may be properly imposed after considering all the
attending circumstances. The minimum of the indeterminate
(b) Juan is a sentence is any penalty, at the court’s discretion, from the
businessman supplying range one degree lower than that prescribed by law for the
computers to the offense, without accounting for the attending circumstances.
government.
Here, the prescribed penalty spans 2 years, 4 months,1 day to
(c) Juan asked Pedro to 6 years. Since there is one mitigating circumstance constituted
meet him in Barcino at by Pedro’s intoxication, provided it is not habitual, the properly
9pm for some drinks. imposable penalty is the minimum period of the prescribed
penalty, which is 2 years, 4 months, 1 day to 3 years, 6 months,
(d) Pedro was 20 days. This is the maximum of the indeterminate sentence.
accompanied by his two
sons, aged 14 and 18. The penalty one degree lower than that prescribed is prision
correccional in its minimum period and arresto mayor in its
(e) Juan, knowing that maximum period, which spans 4 months,11 days to 2 years, 4
alcohol will weaken or months. The minimum of the indeterminate sentence can be
impair the judgment of a taken from this range, at the discretion of the court.
person, waited for Pedro
to be intoxicated before Should pick a precise minimum and precise maximum
he gave him an
envelope full of money.

(f) Pedro accepted the

envelope offered to him
by reason of his office.

As the judge, you found

Pedro guilty of Indirect
Bribery. Applying the
Indeterminate Sentence
Law, what penalty will

13
you impose? Explain
your answer. (20 points)

16. (Might be same If I were the judge, I will impose on Juan the penalty of ● ISL 6/20 pts 2018 Mar. 16
as/similar to our MT, but imprisonment of 9 years, 4 months, and 1 day up to 10 years ● RPC modifying 2AA MT (ata)
lower marks. See above) and 8 months; which is the medium period of the prescribed circumstances (student 1)
penalty of prison mayor in its medium and maximum period or 8 Total Score: 41
years and 1 days up to 12 years. Applying the Indeterminate No questionnaire
Sentence Law (ISL), since the penalty prescribed borrows the
nomenclature of the RPC, the rules under the RPC in getting
the prescribed period will apply. Also, since there are no
modifying circumstances present, the penalty in its medium
period will be applied.

17. Pedro was convicted ● ISL 5/20 :( OUR MT

of direct bribery. After The shortest possible period of time that Pedro should serve in ● GCTA + Loyalty Q2
considering all the prison is 4 years 2 months and 1 day. Red:
attending circumstances, correctio
the judge imposed the The judge imposed an indeterminate sentence, which has a n notes
penalty of 4 years 2 minimum and a maximum. The minimum is for determining the from Sir
months and 1 day of period of time a convict has to serve in prison before being
prision correccional as eligible for parole, while the maximum is for determining the
minimum and 12 years period of time a convict has to serve before his criminal liability
of prision mayor as is extinguished. Thus, generally Pedro must serve a minimum
maximum. Considering prison sentence of 4 years 2 months and 1 day.
everything you learned
so far, what is the **should have included GCTA + loyalty
shortest possible period
of time that Pedro should Sir said: min is 1 yr 11 mos 6 days
serve in prison? Explain
your answer. (20 points)

18. (Might be same With the penalty imposed upon Juan, which is the medium ● ISL 5/20 2018 Mar. 16
as/similar to our MT. See period or 9 years, 4 months, and 1 day to 10 years and 8 ● GCTA 2AA MT (ata)

14
above) months, the shortest possible period that Juan will be in prison (student 1)
or the minimum period is 8 years and 1 day up to 9 years and 4 Total Score: 41
months. The longest possible period or the maximum period, on No questionnaire
the other hand, is 10 years, 8 months, and 1 day up to 12
years. Those were the minimum and maximum periods of the
penalty because there are no other modifying circumstances
present and the basis is the medium period of the penalty
imposed upon Juan.

19. Maria was convicted 14/20 OUR MT

of attempted homicide No, Maria cannot avail of probation. Q3
after pleading guilty and Red:
the judge imposed the This is because she perfected an appeal. An appeal is a waiver correctio
penalty of 6 months of of the right to apply for probation because probation is an n notes
arresto mayor as implied admission of guilt, and thus inconsistent with an appeal. from Sir
minimum and 4 years
and 2 months of prision As an exception, Maria could have still availed of probation
correccional as even if she appealed on the ground of the penalty imposed
maximum. Maria filed an being wrong if she was initially convicted of a non-probationable
appeal contending that offense, and then on appeal the appellate court modified the
the mitigating decision and found her guilty of a probationable offense.
circumstance of plea of However, this exception cannot apply here because the initial
guilt was not considered conviction was already for a probationable offense.
in her favor. The Court of
Appeals granted her Attempted homicide is punishable by prision correccional
appeal and modified the according to the Revised Penal Code, and the entire duration of
maximum penalty to 2 prision correccional is 6 months and 1 day to 6 years.
years and 4 months. According to the Probation Law, probation is generally afforded
Can Maria still avail of to those charged with offenses punishable by imprisonment of
probation? Explain your not more than 6 years. Thus, attempted homicide is one such
answer. (20 points) probationable offense.

In sum, Maria can no longer avail of probation.

Main answer generally OK

15
20. (Might be same No, Juan cannot anymore avail of probation. Filing an appeal Probation 5/20 2018 Mar. 16
as/similar to our MT. See wherein it questions the conviction of the accused is one of the 2AA MT (ata)
above.) disqualifications for the application for probation. It is deemed a (student 1)
waiver of his application for probation. Total Score: 41
However, if the appeal filed is merely for the reduction of the No questionnaire
penalty imposed into a probationable penalty, he is still qualified
for filing an application for probation.
Therefore, the availability of filing an application for probation
even after appeal is filed depends on the grounds invoked on
appeal.

21. (None) For Enrique, he committed the crime of robbery when he ● Anti-Fencing 15 pts 2018 Mar. 16
snatched the gold necklace of Liza. ● RPC Robbery/Theft 2AA MT (ata)
(student 1)
As for Alyana and the owner of the Bagani Jewelry Store, they Total Score: 41
both committed the crime of fencing when they bought and sold No questionnaire
the necklace to each other.

Alyana committed the crime of fencing when she went to

Bagani Jewelry Store and sold the necklace in exchange for her
tuition fee. There is an intent to gain on her part when she sold
the necklace knowing that it is not hers and there is a
presumption that the necklace was a proceed of theft or
robbery. (Sir underlined this part and put a question mark on
top)

Same with the owner of Bagani Jewelry Store. The owner also
committed the crime of fencing when he buys the same from
Alyana without checking if Alyana has the necessary clearance
and permits to sell the necklace. It is one of the requirements in
order to prevent the commission of the crime of fencing.
Establishments should only buy from authorized sellers or
resellers that have necessary clearance or permits to sell.

21.1 (None, but also The arguments of Mr. Mapagsamantala are weak. ● Anti-Fencing 12/20(?) 2018 Dec
related to Anti-Fencing) ● RPC Robbery/Theft FINALS

16
 First, Mr. Mapagsamantala argues that the crime of fencing only
applies to proceeds of theft or robbery. In this case, the 4 essay questions
cellphone and laptop ARE proceeds of theft because Mr. (maybe 20 points
Janitor consummated the act of theft by the mere taking of the each) + 4 multiple
bag of Mr. Makalimutin. It is a crime of theft and not robbery choice (5 points
because there was no threat, violence, or force upon things. each) + 1 bonus
Therefore, as there was a taking of the bag which belongs to
another, with intent to gain, Mr. Janitor committed theft which No questionnaire
makes the cellphone and the bag proceeds of theft.

Second, Mr. Mapagsamantala argues that he did not know that

Mr. Janitor is not the owner of the cellphone and laptop,
however, as provided for by the Anti-Fencing Law, there is a
disputable presumption that possession of the proceeds of theft
or robbery constitutes that the person has acquired it through
the thief or robber. Also, knowledge, in this case, is also
immaterial because of said presumption. Therefore, Mr.
Mapagsamantala may be charged for violating the Anti-Fencing
Law.

22. Rody was charged RA 9851: PH Act on 13/20 OUR MT

before the International The City Prosecutor should dismiss the complaint. Crimes Against Q5
Criminal Court of International Red:
genocide for the mass Under RA 9851, the International Criminal Court has concurrent Humanitarian Law (on correctio
killing of members of jurisdiction with the appropriate local courts in case of violations jurisdiction) n notes
different drug of the aforementioned law. In case that the accused, for acts from Sir
syndicates. Sonny filed a constituting violation of RA 9851, is already charged before the
case against Rody for International Criminal Court, any charge in the Philippine courts
the same acts before the for the same acts, as violation of RA 9851, should give way to
City Prosecutor of the prior case and be dismissed.
Manila using as basis,
RA 9851 or the Prosec may proceed or not, and just extradite
Philippine Act on Crimes
Against International
Humanitarian Law,
Genocide and Other

17
Crimes Against
Humanity. What should
the prosecutor do? (20
points)

23. (I am strongly sure The prosecutor should dismiss the case filed by Sonny against RA 9851: PH Act on 12/20 2018 Mar. 16
this is the same as our Rody. Crimes Against 2AA MT (ata)
MT. See above.) Under RA 9851(PH Act on Crimes Against International International (student 2)
Humanitarian Law), the provision on jurisdiction states that the Humanitarian Law (on Total Score: 40
Philippine courts are authorized to hear cases for acts jurisdiction) No questionnaire
committed constituting genocide, crimes against International
Humanitarian Law, and other crimes against humanity, under
the ff. Circumstances:
1. If such act is committed by a Filipino citizen
2. If committed regardless of citizenship, w/in the
Philippines
3. If committed against a Filipino citizen.
If Rody and Sonny are Filipino citizens, and/or the acts
constituting genocide are done in the Philippines, the complaint
should prosper.

However, under the same section of the law, if there is a

pending case filed in an international tribunal, such as the
International Criminal Court, there is no need to prosecute the
offender under the domestic jurisdiction. Rody is already
charged of genocide for the same acts before the ICC.
Therefore, the filing of the case in Manila for the same acts
should be denied.

The prosecution should not proceed with the prosecution of the RA 9851: PH Act on 10/20 2018 Mar. 16
24. Same as above crime because there is already a pending case involving the Crimes Against 2AA MT (ata)
(lower mark) same acts and party before the International Criminal Court. International (student 1)
Humanitarian Law (on Total Score: 41
What the prosecutor and the State should do is to surrender the jurisdiction) No questionnaire
accused, Rody, before the International Criminal Court and let

18
the International Criminal Court decide the case before them.

19