CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FINAL EXAMINATION PART TWO FACT PATTERN NO.

1 At 11:30 in the evening of October 15, 2011, Mr. Rolando Llamado, the Presidents political adviser with rank of Secretary, is arrested after a traffic altercation where his government-issued, brand new Suburban has rear-ended a kia pride which refused to go through a red light despite incessant horn blowing by Mr. Llamado. The smaller vehicles rear is almost totally destroyed while the Suburban does not even have a dent because it has specially-designed bumpers. The kias driver and passenger are both unhurt although traumatized. After the incident, both the kias driver and passenger alight from the vehicle but no one from the Suburban alights. The kias driver and passenger tap on the heavily-tinted windows of the bigger vehicle but to no avail. Finally, a traffic management group police officer arrives, only to berate the driver and the passenger of the kia for impeding the Suburbans path. Incredulous, the driver and the passenger argue with the police officer; while this is going on, Llamado, who is seated on the passenger side of the Suburban, is seen alighting from the vehicle and moving to another vehicle that has just arrived. Also seen alighting from the drivers side is a young woman, approximately 20 years old. The driver and passenger of the Kia rush to stop Llamado and his female companion but are stopped by the police officer. By this time, a media crew has arrived and because of the cameras focused on him, Llamado is forced to stop and answer questions; the police officer is also forced to let both the kia driver and passenger pass to catch up with Llamado and his companion. It turns out that the female driver of the Suburban is not the official driver of the government-issued van, nor is she a member of Llamados staff or a government employee; she is a foreigner who was detained by the Immigration Bureau for working illegally as an escort but who somehow found herself as Llamados date for the evening, upon Llamados request. She had insisted on driving the Suburban as she said she had never driven anything like that before and because Llamado wanted to show off, he allowed her. The female driver has no license. Other police officers now arrive and are forced to impound the vehicle. Upon boarding the vehicle to take it to the impound, the police officers see five firearms inside the vehicleone AK-47, one M-16, two .45 caliber automatics and a .22 cal pistol. There is also a bottle of what appears to be small blue tablets. Llamado is quiet all throughout and appears lethargic while the female driver is noisy and almost manic. The police, suspecting that both are either drunk or stoned, invite them for questioning; both agree. The kia driver and passenger follow the convoy to the police station. At the station, both Llamado and the female driver admit that they were both drunk, having come from a party before the incident, but Llamado denies he is stoned insisting that he is a health buff and does not do drugs. The female, on the other hand, admits that she popped several of the blue pills but did not

remember how many. Upon verification, it turns out that the female driver is only 14 years old but looks older. Both the kia driver and passenger execute written sworn statements serving as complaints against Llamado and his underaged female companion. They are both arrested and detained. Later, Llamado is charged with (1) violation of PD 1866 (5 counts); and (2) Technical malversation (for allowing a non-authorized driver to use a government-issued vehicle). During the trial, the following pieces of evidence are presented for the prosecution: 1. Police report showing that the kia was at a full stop and that the traffic light was red and showing that the Suburban was the vehicle that hit the kia in he rear portion (with pictures); 2. Registration papers of the Suburban, showing that it was imported by the Office of the President and assigned to the Office of the Political Adviser; 3. A certification as to the authorized driver of the Suburban, one Juanito Tenson, a member of the PSG, who was not present during the incident; 4. BID documents showing the arrest and detention of the female driver for being an unauthorized alien and ordering her detention pending deportation; 5. A letter from Llamado addressed to the BID Commissioner asking for release into his custody of the female driver, subject to his periodic report as to her whereabouts; 6. Birth certificate of the female driver showing her age as 14 years; 7. The five firearms found in the vehicle, with corresponding negative certifications from the Firearms and Explosives Office of the Philippine National Police in the name of Mr. Rolando Llamado; 8. Negative certifications in the name of Mr. Rolando Llamado from the Commission on Elections, the PNP and the Armed Forces of the Philippines as to Llamados authority to carry a firearm outside residence; 9. Testimony and sworn statement of the PNP officer who entered the Suburban to drive it to impound and witnessed the firearms; 10.Testimony and sworn statement of the Kia driver as to the extent of damages incurred by the Kia. Llamado submitted a Demurrer to the evidence which was denied. He only presented himself as witness and testified that: 1. He was not the driver of the Suburban and therefore cannot be held liable for any damage caused to the kia as a result of the collision; 2. He was asleep at the time of the incident and only woke up when the incident happened; 3. He had advised his female companion to drive carefully and she had promised him that he would. 4. The firearms are his personal property and that there are pending applications for registration; 5. He needed to carry the firearms outside his residence because there were so many threats against his life (nature of threats were not specified); 6. There is no technical malversation as the government vehicle was not stolen and that they were on their way to an official function where the

President was the guest speaker and so it was not used for an unauthorized purpose. Instructions: 1. Draft a Trial Memorandum using the format indicated in the instructions accompanying the examination (given separately). In your Trial Memorandum, take either the side of Llamado or the driver of the Kia, arguing against either liability or for liability based on all that has been given. 2. You are going to be evaluated based on writing, organization of thought, argumentation as well as persuasive ability. Correctness is not the primary consideration. 3. Do not change, modify or assume any facts; take the facts as presented. 4. You may refer to cases, statutes or any other legal basis; please note that commentaries are not considered legal basis. 5. Indicate the female companion as Ms. F, the driver of the Kia as Mr. D and the passenger as Mr. P. You do not need to indicate other details. FACT PATTERN NO. 2 *Fact Pattern No. 2 takes off from the first fact pattern with the following additional events. Two days after the incident referred to above, the Swedish Embassy makes representations on behalf of Ms. F, the driver of the vehicle, who is still in detention. It turns out that she is a Swedish national and is actually Birgita Anderssen. The embassy confirms that she is 14 years old and is the niece of the current Ambassador of Sweden to the Philippines. The embassy is told by the police that Birgita would still be charged with reckless imprudence resulting to damage to the property as well as violation of the dangerous drugs act of 2002. The embassy claims that she is immune from suit because she is a Swedish national and that she is a minor. Instructions: 1. You are retained by the Swedish Ambassador to advise him on what to do with Birgita. 2. Draft a Legal Opinion advising the Ambassador (refer to him as The Ambassador) as to the appropriate remedies available using the format indicated in the instructions accompanying the examination (given separately). 3. You are going to be evaluated based on writing, organization of thought, argumentation as well as persuasive ability. Correctness is not the primary consideration. 4. Do not change, modify or assume any facts; take the facts as presented (but for purposes of this fact pattern, refer to fact pattern #1 as may be relevant to Birgita only. 5. You may refer to cases, statutes or any other legal basis; please note that commentaries are not considered legal basis.