2019 BAR EXAMINATIONS

CRIMINAL LAW

PART I

A.1.

Define/distinguish the following terms:

(a) Mala in se and mala prohibita (2%)

(b) Grave, less grave, and light felonies (3%)

(c) Aberratio ictus, error in personae, and praeter intentionem (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER/S:

(a) Mala in Se are acts or omissions which are wrong or evil in its
very nature. On the other hand, Mala Prohibita are acts or omissions that
are not wrong or evil in essence, but they are wrong or evil because they are
prohibited.

all crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code, and any amendments
thereto through Special Penal Laws, are considered Mala in Se. As such,
they are called Felonies. While Crimes punished by Special Penal Laws,
standing alone, are considered as Mala Prohibita.

(b) Grave felonies, less grave felonies and light felonies. - Grave
felonies are those to which the law attaches the capital punishment or
penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive, in accordance with
Art. 25 of this Code. While Less grave felonies are those which the law
punishes with penalties which in their maximum period are correctional, in
accordance with the above-mentioned Art.. While Light felonies are those
infractions of law for the commission of which a penalty of arrest menor or
a fine not exceeding 200 pesos or both; is provided.

(c) Aberratio Ictus is mistake in the blow. It is a manner or

incurring criminal liability according to Paragraph 1, Article 4, Revised
Penal Code. It is a mistake in the identity of the victim, which may either be
(a) "error in personae" (mistake of the person), or (b) "aberratio ictus"
(mistake in the blow), it is neither exempting nor mitigating (People vs.
Gona, 54 Phil. 605 [1930]). While Praeter intentionem (injurious result is
greater than that intended) - it is the lack of intention to commit so grave a
wrong as that committed. The injury is on the intended victim but the
resulting consequences is so grave a wrong than what was intended. It
happens when somebody already was planning to do something bad but his
actions ended up producing something worse.

A.2.

Mr. X has always been infatuated with Ms. Y. Scorned by Mr. Y's disregard for his
feelings towards her, Mr. X came up with a plan to abduct Ms. Y in order to have
carnal knowledge of her with the help of his buddies, A, B, and C.
On the day they decided to carry out the plan, and while surreptitiously waiting for
Ms. Y, C had a change of heart and left. This notwithstanding, Mr. X, A, and B
continued with the plan and abducted Ms. Y by forcefully taking her to a deserted
house away from the city. There, Mr. X restrained Ms. Y's arms, while A held her legs
apart. B stood as a lookout. Mr. X was then able to have carnal knowledge of Ms. Y,
who was resisting throughout the entire ordeal.

Consequently, Mr. X was charged with the crime of Forcible Abduction under the
Revised Penal Code.

(a) Is the charge against Mr. X proper? Explain. (3%)

(b) Assuming that A, B, and C are also charged, may they be held
criminally liable together with Mr. X? Explain. (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER/S:

(a) The charge against Mr. X is not proper. The crime Mr X

committed is Rape. The crime of abduction was just a means of perpetuating
the crime. The intent of Mr. X was clearly to have a carnal knowledge.
Hence, the crime of abduction will be absorbed. (People vs. Sabadlab)

(b) Conspiracy was properly established amongst the 4 and the

crime was consummated; hence, A and B will have the same criminal
liability with Mr X for the crime of Rape. However, due to his spontaneous
desistance prior to the commencement of the crime, C is not criminally
liable.

A.3.

Mr. O, a 75-year old retiree who has been a widower for the last ten (10) years,
believed that, at past 70, he is licensed to engage in voyeurism to satisfy his lustful
desires. If not peeping into his neighbors' room through his powerful single-cylinder
telescope, he would trail young, shapely girls along the hallways and corridors of
shopping malls, While going up the escalator, he stayed a step behind a mini-skirted,
20-year old girl, and in the heat of the moment, put his hand on her left buttock and
massaged it. The girl screamed and hollered for help. Mr. O was thus apprehended
and charged with Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code.
Mr. O's counsel, however, claimed that Mr. O should only be charged with the crime
of Unjust Vexation.

Is the contention of Mr. O's counsel tenable? Explain (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER/S:

Yes. The contention of Mr. O’s counsel is tenable, mere touching or

massaging the buttocks does not clearly indicate sexual design. to be liable
under acts of lasciviousness the act must be one that shows perversity to
gratify sexual arousal/ desire. circumstances in the problem fell short to
qualify as one. thus, unjust vexation is proper where it only brought
annoyance and irritation to the woman.
 A.4.

In dire need of money, Mr. R decided to steal from his next-door neighbor, Mrs. V. On
the night of May 15, 2010, Mr. R proceeded with his plan entered Mrs. V's bedroom
by breaking one of the windows from the outside. Finding Mrs. V sound asleep, he
silently foraged through her cabinet, and stashed all the bundles of cash and jewelries
he could find.

As Mr. R was about to leave, he heard Mrs. V shout, "Stop or I will shoot you!", and
when he turned around, he saw Mrs. V cocking a rifle which has pointed at him.
Fearing for his life, Mr. R then lunged at Mrs. V and was able to wrest the gun away
from her. Thereafter, Mr. R shot Mrs. V, which resulted in her death. Mr. R's deeds
were discovered on the very same night as he was seen by law enforcement
authorities fleeing the crime scene.

(a) What crime/s did Mr. R commit under the Revised Penal Code?
Explain (2.5%)

(b) Based on your answer in question (a), within what period should
the prosecution file the criminal charge against Mr. R in order to
avoid prescription? Explain (2%)

(c) May Mr. R validly invoke the justifying circumstances of self-

defense? Explain (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER/S:

(a) Mr. R committed a special complex crime of Robbery with

homicide. A special complex crime of robbery with homicide takes place
when a homicide is committed either by reason, or on the occasion, of the
robbery. The crime of robbery is the main purpose, and the objective of the
malefactor and the killing is merely incidental to the robbery. The intent to
rob must precede the taking of human life but the killing may occur before,
during or after the robbery.

(b) It must be prosecuted within 20 years counting from May 15,

2010 when it was committed and the same being discovered by the law
enforcement authorites.

(c) No. The unlawful aggression must not originate from the one
invoking it. There was unlawful aggression on Mr. R because he was
committing the crime of robbery. Mrs. V was merely exercising her lawful
defense of property.

A.5.

In August 2018, B entered into a contract with S for the purchase of the latter's
second-hand car in the amount of ₱400,000.00 payable in two (2) equal monthly
installments. Simultaneously with the signing of the contract and S's turnover of the
car keys, B executed, issued, and delivered two (2) post-dated checks, all payable to
S, with the assurances that they will be honored on their respective maturity dates.
However, all two (2) checks were dishonored for being drawn against insufficient
funds. Consequently, notices therefore were duly issued to and received by B, but this
notwithstanding, no payment arrangements were made by him. Further, upon S's
investigation, it was uncovered that B's checking account had only ₱50,000.00 when
its was opened in June 2018 and no further deposits were made after that. S also
found out that B knew fully well of such circumstance at the time he issued the two
(2) checks.

What crime/s should B be charges with and for how many counts?
Explain (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER/S:

B should be charged with one count of Estafa because he issued a

check in payment of an obligation, he had an Insufficiency of funds to cover
the check, there was Damage to the payee thereof.

(2) counts of B.P. 22 for Making, drawing and issuance of any check to apply
for account or for value, with the knowledge that at the time of issue he does
not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment
of such check in full upon its presentment, and the subsequent dishonor of
the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or
dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause,
ordered the bank to stop payment. All of which are present.

A.6.

Mr. A has a long-standing feud with Mr. B. As payback for Mr. B's numerous
transgressions against him, Mr. A planned to bum down Mr. B's rest house.

One night, Mr. A went to the rest house and started pouring gasoline on its walls.
However, just as Mr. A had lit the match for burning, he was discovered by Mr. B's
caretaker, Ms. C, and was consequently prevented from setting the rest house on fire.
Mr. A was then charged with Frustrated Arson.

(a) Is the charge of Frustrated Arson proper? Explain. (2%)

(b) Assuming that Mr. A successfully burned down Mr. B's rest house,
and as a result, Ms. C was trapped therein and was subsequently killed
in the fire, what crime/s did Mr. A commit? Explain. (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER/S:

(a) No, the charge is not proper. Only attempted arson because the
offender has commenced the act but the crime was not accomplished
through reasons independent of the will of the offender. The discovery of
Ms C is an "accident" which prevented the crime of consummated arson.
There is no arson in the frustrated stage.
 (b) Mr. A committed arson qualified by the death of Ms. C. Under
P.D. 1613, there is no complex crime of arson with homicide. It by reason or
on occasion of arson, death results, the crime of homicide is absorbed in
arson. (People vs. Villacorta, 172468, October 15, 2008).

A.7.

Mr. L is a newspaper reporter who writes about news items concerning the judiciary.
Mr. L believed that members of the judiciary can be criticized and exposed for the
prohibited acts that they commit by virtue of the public nature of their offices. Upon
receiving numerous complaints from private citizens, Mr. L released a scathing
newspaper expose involving Judge G and his alleged acts constituting graft and
corruption. Consequently, Mr. L was charged with the crime of Libel.

In response, Mr. L contended that truth is a valid defense in Libel and in this relation,
claimed that he was only exposing the truth regarding Judge G's misdeeds. Further,
Mr. L contended that in any event, his expose on Judge G is based on the complaints
he received from private citizens, and as such, should be deemed as a mere fair
commentary on a matter of public interest.

(a) Are the contentions of Mr. L tenable? Explain. (3%)

(b) What is the effect on the criminal liability of an accused if he or

she publishes a libelous article on an online news platform? Explain.
(2 %)

SUGGESTED ANSWER/S:

(a) Yes. The contention of L is meritorious. News reporting is

qualifiedly privileged communication. In this kind of communication, the
imputation is not actionable in the absence of malice as an element of libel.

(b) Under the Cybercrime Prevention Act, the penalty for libel is
one degree higher if it is published through the internet or computer
system.

A.8.

After a successful entrapment operation by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency,

Mr. D, a known drug pusher, was arrested on January 15, 2019 for having been
caught in flagrante delicto selling a pack of shabu, a prohibited drug, to the poseur-
buyer. Consequently, Mr. D was frisked by the arresting officer, and aluminum foils,
plastic lighters, and another plastic sachet of shabu were obtained from him. The
items were marked immediately upon confiscation, and they were likewise
inventoried and photographed at the place of arrest. Throughout the process, a media
representative was able to witness the conduct of the marking, inventory, and
photography of the seized items in the presence of Mr. D.

Mr. D was then charged with the crimes of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of
Dangerous Drugs. In defense, he lamented that the chain of custody procedure under
Section 21, Article II of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, as
amended, was not followed because only a media representative was present. In
response, the prosecution maintained that the said media representative was a very
credible reporter and as such, the presence of any other witness was unnecessary.

(a) Was the chain of custody procedure validly complied with in this
case? If not, was the deviation from such procedure justified? Explain.
(3%)

(b) What is the consequence of an unjustified deviation from the chain

of custody rule to the criminal case against Mr. D? Explain. (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER/S:

(a) Yes. Under Section 21 of RA No. 9165 as amended by RA No.

10640, the inventory and photography of the seized items must be made in
the presence of at least three persons: (1) the accused or the person from
whom such items were confiscated or his representative or counsel; (2) the
media or representatives of National Prosecution Service and (3) any
elected public official. However, noncompliance requirements under
justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall
not render void and invalid such seizures and custody over said items.
Applying the 2 witnesses rule, the provisions of section 1 were not followed.
However, in this case, there was immediate marking, inventory and
photograph. Hence, the chain of custody was duly established. As long as
the integrety of confiscated pieces of evidence is well preserved and there
is no doubt as to its handling,said the evidence may be admitted.

(b) The case against Mr. D may be dismissed. There is an

inadmissibility of evidence for failure or unjustified deviation to comply
with the rule on chain of custody.

A.9.

X and Y approached Mayor Z and requested him to solemnize their marriage. On the
day of the ceremony, X and Y proceeded to Mayor Z's office but he was not there.
Mayor Z's chief of staff, Mr. U, however, represented that he himself can solemnize
their marriage and just have Mayor Z sign the marriage certificate when the latter
comes back. Consequently, upon X and Y's assent, Mr. U solemnized the marriage,
despite his lack of authority therefor.

(a) What crime may Mr. U be charged with under the Revised Penal
Code (RPC)? Explain. (2.5%)

(b) Assuming that Mayor Z signed the marriage certificate which

stated that he solemnized the marriage of X and Y, what crime may
Mayor Z be charged with under the RPC? Explain. (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER/S:

(a) Usurpation of Authority or Official Functions (Art. 177, RPC).

The elements are as follows: 1. The offender performs any act; 2. Pertaining
to any person in authority or public officer of the Philippine Government
or any foreign government or any agency thereof; 3. Under pretense of
official position; and 4. Without being lawfully entitled to do so. In this case,
Mr. U falsely misrepresented himself as having the authority to solemnized
the marriage when he in fact, did not, and as such, he usurped the authority
and functions of Mayor Z.

(b) Falsification by a public officer (Article 171, RPC). Article 171…

punishes public officers for falsifying a document by making any alteration
or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its meaning. The
elements of falsification under this provision are as follows: 1. The offender
is a public officer, employee, or a notary public, 2. The offender takes
advantage of his or her official position, 3. The offender falsifies a document
by committing any of the acts of falsification under Article 171. Here, Mayor
Z falsified said document in violation of article 171 of the RPC.

A.10.

Distinguish Rebellion under the Revised Penal Code and Terrorism

under the Human Security Act of 2007. (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER/S:

In the RPC, rebellion is punishable as a crime. The crime of rebellion

or insurrection is committed by rising publicly and taking arms against the
government for the purpose of removing from the allegiance to said
Government or its laws, the territory of the Republic of the Philippines or
any part thereof, of any body of land, naval or other armed forces, or
depriving the Chief Executive or the Legislature, wholly or partially, of any
of their powers or prerogatives.

Under the human security act, particularly in terrorism, the crime of

rebellion is included in the list of predicate crimes. In essence, it becomes
an element or ingredient of terrorism. Terrorism is committed by any
person who commits an act punishable under any of the following
provisions of the Revised Penal Code: a. Article 122 (Piracy in General and
Mutiny in the High Seas or in the Philippine Waters); b. Article 134
(Rebellion or Insurrection); c. Article 134-a (Coup d' Etat), including acts
committed by private persons; d. Article 248 (Murder); e. Article 267
(Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention); f. Article 324 (Crimes Involving
Destruction)… thereby sowing and creating a condition of widespread and
extraordinary fear and panic among the populace, in order to coerce the
government to give in to an unlawful demand shall be guilty of the crime of
terrorism and shall suffer the penalty of forty (40) years of imprisonment,
without the benefit of parole.
- END OF PART I -
 PART II

B.11.

Ms. M, a Malaysian visiting the Philippines, was about to depart for Hong Kong via
an Indonesian-registered commercial vessel. While on board the vessel, which was
still docked at the port of Manila, she saw her mortal enemy, Ms. A, an Australian
citizen. Ms. A was seated at the front portion of the cabin and was busy using her
laptop, with no idea whatsoever that Ms. M was likewise onboard the ship.

Consumed by her anger towards Ms. A, Ms. M stealthily approached the Australian
from behind, and then quickly stabbed her neck with a pocketknife, resulting in Ms.
A's immediate death. Operatives from the Philippine National Police - Maritime
Command arrested Ms. M for the killing of Ms. A and thereafter, intended to charge
her under the Revised Penal Code (RPC). Ms. M contended that the provisions of the
RPC cannot be applied and enforced against her because both she and the victim are
not Filipino nationals, and besides, the alleged crime was committed in an
Indonesian-registered vessel.

(a) Is Ms. M's contention against the application of the RPC against
her tenable? Explain. (3%)

(b) Assuming that the provisions of the RPC can be applied against
Ms. M, what crime under the RPC should she be charged with?
Explain. (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER/S:

(a) No, the contention of Ms. M is not tenable. Under the rule on
foreign merchant vessel (English rule), crimes committed aboard a vessel
within the territorial waters of a country are triable in the courts of such
country since it affects the peace and security of our country. Here, the
crime happened while the vessel though foreign is docketed in the port of
Manila, it is within the territorial waters of the Philippines. Hence,
contention of Ms. M is not tenable.

(b) Ms. M should be charged with murder. The Revised Penal Code
provides that murder qualified by treachery is where the offender commits
any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods or forms
in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its
execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the
offended part might make. Here, Ms. M stealthily approached the Australian
from behind, and then quickly stabbed her neck with a pocketknife, a means
which tends directly to insure the crime without risk to herself. Hence,
murder qualified by treachery should be charged against Ms. M.

B.12.
In November 2018, Mr. N, a notorious criminal, was found guilty of three (3) counts
of Murder and was consequently sentenced with the penalty of reclusion perpetua for
each count. A month after, he was likewise found guilty of five (5) counts of Grave
Threats in a separate criminal proceeding, and hence, meted with the penalty of
prision mayor for each count.

(a) What are the respective durations of the penalties of reclusion

perpetua and prision mayor? (3%)

(b) How long will Mr. N serve all his penalties of imprisonment?
Explain. (2.5%)

(c) May Mr. N avail of the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law
with respect to his convictions for Murder and Grave Threats?
Explain. (3%)

(d) Is Mr. N considered a habitual delinquent? Explain. (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER/S:

(a) Reclusion Perpetua has a duration of 20 years and 1 day to 40

years. and Prision Mayor has a duration of 6 years and 1 day to 12 years

(b) Mr. N shall serve for 40 years. The three‐fold rule provides that
when a convict is to serve successive penalties, he will not actually serve
the penalties imposed by law. Instead, the most severe of the penalties
imposed on him shall be multiplied by three and the period will be the only
term of the penalty to be served by him. However, in no case
should the penalty exceed 40 years.

(c) With respect to his conviction for murder he is disqualified of the

benefit of Indeterminate Sentence Law while in the crime of Grave Threat
he may avail the benefit of Indeterminate Sentence Law. A.M. No. 15-08-02-
SC section 3 provides that persons convicted of offenses punished with
reclusion perpetua are not eligible for parole under R.A. 4103 or the
Indeterminate Sentence Law.

(d) No. Habitual delinquent is a person within a period of ten years

from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less
serious physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa or falsification, is found
guilty of the said crimes a third time or oftener. Since the crime of murder
and Grave Threat are not among the crimes in the definition, Mr. N is not
habitual delinquent.

B.13.

Mr. Q was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Serious Physical
Injuries, and accordingly, was sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an
indeterminate period of six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4)
years, two (2) months, and one (1) day of prision correccional, as maximum. He was
also ordered to pay the victim actual damages in the amount of ₱50,000.00, with
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.

Was the imposition of subsidiary imprisonment proper? Explain. (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER/S:

No, the imposition of subsidiary imprisonment under Article 39 of the

RPC applies only to non-payment of fine. Here, it was for the payment of
actual damages and not a fine. Hence subsidiary imprisonment will not
apply.

B.14.

Mr. X and Mr. Y engaged in a violent fistfight which Mr. X instigated. This
culminated in Mr. X repeatedly smashing Mr. Y's head on the concrete pavement.
Thereafter, Mr. X left Mr. Y barely breathing and almost dead. A few minutes after
the incident, Mr. X immediately went to the police station to confess what he did and
told the police where he left Mr. Y. Fortunately, the police rescued Mr. Y and he
survived with the help of timely medical intervention. Mr. X was then charged in
court with Frustrated Homicide, to which he openly confessed his guilt upon
arraignment.

(a) Based on the above-stated facts, what is/are the mitigating

circumstance/s that may be appreciated in favor of Mr. X. Explain.
(2%)

(b) Under the Revised Penal Code, Homicide is punished with the
penalty of reclusion temporal. Without applying the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, what penalty should be imposed against Mr. X
assuming that he is found guilty of the charge of Frustrated Homicide,
and that the presence of two (2) ordinary mitigating circumstances
have been duly alleged and proven? Explain. (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER/S:

(a) The mitigating circumstance present here is in art. 13 par. 7 of the

RPC which says that the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a
person in authority or his agents, or that he had voluntarily confessed his
guilt before the court prior to the presentation of the evidence for the
prosecution;
 (b). The penalty should be within the range of prision correcional.
Under Art. 64. par.5 when there are two or more mitigating circumstances
and no aggravating circumstances are present, the court shall impose the
penalty next lower to that prescribed by law, in the period that it may deem
applicable, according to the number and nature of such circumstances.
Frustrated homicide is punishable by prision mayor and with the
attendance of two ordinary mitigating circumstances, the penalty to be
imposed is the penalty next lower which is prision correcional.

B.15.

In June 2017, Mr. P was criminally charged with Qualified Theft under the Revised
Penal Code. After due proceedings, the Regional Trial Court found him guilty beyond
reasonable doubt, and accordingly, sentenced him to suffer the penalty of
imprisonment for an indeterminate period of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision
mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and one (1) day, of reclusion temporal, as
maximum. Thereafter, Mr. P applied for probation.

(a) May Mr. P be extended the benefits of the Probation Law? Explain.
(3%)

(b) In what instance may an accused who appeals a judgment of

conviction still apply for probation? Explain. (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER/S:

(a) No. Probation cannot be availed of when the penalty exceeds six
years and the penalty imposed to Mr. P exceeds 6 years.

(b) As enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of Colinares v

People 662 SCRA 266, an accused who appeals a judgement of conviction
can still apply for probation provided that his appeal is limited to the
following grounds:

1. When the appeal is merely intended for the correction of the

penalty imposed by the lower court, which when corrected would entitle
the accused to apply for probation; and

2. When the appeal is merely intended to review the crime for which
the accused was convicted and that the accused should only be liable to the
lesser offense which is necessarily included in the crime for which he was
originally convicted and the proper penalty imposable is within the
probationable period.
 B. 16

Ms. E was charged with the complex crime of Estafa through Falsification of Public
Documents before the trial court. Prior to her arraignment, Ms. E moved for the
dismissal of the criminal case against her, pointing out that the private offended
party is her biological father, and that such relationship is an absolutory cause under
Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).

(a) Explain the concept of complex crimes under the RPC. (2%)

(b) Is Ms. E's contention correct? Explain. (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER/S:

B.17.

One Sunday afternoon, Mr. X, President of ABC Corp., happened to bump into the
Labor Arbiter assigned to the illegal dismissal case filed by certain employees against
his company. During their encounter, Mr. X promised the Labor Arbiter a luxury car
in exchange for a favorable ruling. The Labor Arbiter immediately rejected the offer
and walked away.

(a) What crime did Mr. X commit under the Revised Penal Code (RPC),
if any? Explain. (2.5%)

(b) Assuming that Mr. X's offer was instead accepted, should the Labor
Arbiter be held liable for any crime under the RPC? If so, for what
crime? May the Labor Arbiter also be held liable for violation of the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act? Explain. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER/S:

B.18.

A typhoon destroyed the houses of many of the inhabitants of Municipality M.

Accordingly, the local government passed an appropriation in the amount of
₱1,000,000.00 to implement a Calamity Assistance Program for the typhoon victims,
and the funds therefor were eventually earmarked for the purpose. Upon the orders,
however, of Mayor T of Municipality M, these funds were disbursed for the
reconstruction of the municipal hall which was substantially damaged by the
typhoon. According to Mayor T, the reconstruction of the municipal hall was a more
pressing concern than the relief program because the vital functions of the local
government would be impeded if the said structure would not be immediately fixed.

What crime did Mayor T commit under the Revised Penal Code?
Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER/S:

B.19.

Ms. L, dean of a duly recognized private school, caught K, one of her students,
vandalizing one of the school's properties. Ms. L called K's attention and proceeded
to scold him, causing a crowd to gather around them. Embarrassed with the situation,
K attacked Ms. L by repeatedly punching her on the face. Just as K was about to
strike Ms. L again, J, another student, intervened. K then turned his anger on J and
also hit him repeatedly, causing him physical injuries.

What crime/s did K commit under the Revised Penal Code for his acts
against Ms. Land J? Explain. (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER/S:

B.20.

Mr. S, a businessman and information technology practitioner, claimed to have

devised an innovative business model. He would diligently compile a list of known
personalities and entities in the fields of entertainment, arts, culture, and sports, and
acquire numerous domain names in the internet using the names of these known
personalities and entities for the purpose of selling these registered domain names to
said personalities and entities in the future.

Does Mr. S's "innovative business model" expose him to any criminal
liability under the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012? If so, for what
crime? Explain. (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER/S:

- END OF PART II -
Nothing follows