Art 148; Direct Assault with murder (1995)
Pascual operated a rice thresher in Barangay Napnud where he resided. Renato, a resident of the neighboring Barangay Guihaman, also operated a mobile rice thresher which he often brought to Barangay Napnud to thresh the palay of the farmers there. This was bitterly resented by Pascual, one afternoon Pascual, and his two sons confronted Renato and his men who were operating their mobile rice thresher along a feeder road in Napnud. A heated argument ensued. A barangay captain who was
fetched by one of Pascual's men tried to appease Pascual and Renato to prevent a violent confrontation.
However, Pascual resented the intervention of the barangay captain and hacked him to death. What crime was committed by Pascual? Discuss fully.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Pascual committed the complex crime of homicide with assault upon a person in authority (Arts. 148 and 249 in relation to Art, 48, RPC). A barangay chairman, is in law (Art. 152), a person in authority and if he is attacked while in the performance of his official duties or on the occasion thereof the felony of direct assault is committed. Art. 48, RPC, on the other hand, provides that if a single act produces two or
more grave or less grave felonies, a complex crime is committed. Here, the single act of the offender in hacking the victim to death resulted in two felonies, homicide which is grave and direct assault which is less grave.
Crimes against Public Interest False Notes; Illegal Possession (1999)
1. Is mere possession of false money bills punishable under Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code? Explain.
(3%)
2. The accused was caught in possession of 100 counterfeit P20 bills. He could not explain how and why he possessed the said bills. Neither could he explain what he intended to do with the fake bills. Can he be held criminally liable for such possession? Decide. (3%}
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. No. Possession of false treasury or bank note alone without an intent to use it, is not punishable. But the circumstances of such possession may indicate intent to utter, sufficient to consummate the crime of illegal possession of false notes.
2. Yes. Knowledge that the note is counterfeit and intent to use it may be shown by the conduct of the accused. So, possession of 100 false bills reveal: (a) knowledge that the bills are fake; and (b) intent to utter the same.
False Testimony (1994)
Paolo was charged with homicide before the Regional Trial Court of Manila. Andrew, a prosecution witness, testified that he saw Paolo shoot Abby during their heated argument. While the case is still pending, the City Hall of Manila burned down and the entire records of the case were destroyed. Later, the records were reconstituted. Andrew was again called to the witness stand. This time he testified that his first testimony was false and the truth was he was abroad when the crime took place. The judge immediately ordered the
prosecution of Andrew for giving a false testimony favorable to the defendant in a criminal case.
1.] Will the case against Andrew prosper?
2.] Paolo was acquitted. The decision became final on January 10, 1987. On June 18, 1994 a case of giving false testimony was filed against Andrew. As his lawyer, what legal step will you take?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) Yes. For one to be criminally liable under Art. 181, RFC, it is not necessary that the criminal case where Andrew testified is terminated first. It is not even required of the prosecution to prove which of the two statements of the witness is false and to prove the statement to be false by evidence other than the contradictory statements (People vs.
Arazola, 13 Court of Appeals Report, 2nd series, p. 808).
2) As lawyer of Andrew, I will file a motion to quash the Information on the ground of prescription. The crime of false testimony under Art. 180 has prescribed because Paolo, the accused in the principal case, was acquitted on January 10, 1987 and therefore the penalty prescribed for such crime is arresto mayor under Art. 180, par. 4, RPC.
Crimes punishable by arresto mayor prescribes in five (5) years (Art. 90, par. 3, RPC). But the case against Andrew was filed only on June 18, 1994, whereas the principal criminal case was decided with finality on January 10, 1987 and, thence the prescriptive period of the crime commenced to run. From January 10, 1987 to June 18, 1994 is more than five (5) years.
Falsification; Presumption of Falsification (1999)
A falsified official or public document was found in the possession of the accused. No evidence was introduced to show that the accused was the author of the falsification. As a matter of fact, the trial court convicted the accused of falsification of official or public document mainly on the proposition that "the only person who could have made the erasures and the superimposition mentioned is the one who will be benefited by the alterations thus made" and that "he alone could have the motive for making such alterations". Was the conviction of the accused proper although the conviction was premised merely on the aforesaid ratiocination?
Explain your answer. (3%) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the conviction is proper because there is a presumption in law that the possessor and user of a falsified document is the one who falsified the same.
Forgery & Falsification (1999)
How are "forging" and "falsification" committed? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: FORGING or forgery is committed by giving to a treasury or bank note or any
instrument payable to bearer or to order the appearance of a true and genuine document; or by erasing, substituting, counterfeiting, or altering by any means the figures, letters, words or signs contained therein. FALSIFICATION, on the other hand, is committed by: 1 Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric; 2 Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate; 3 Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding statements other than those in fact made by them; 4 Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts; 5 Altering true dates; 6 Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its meaning; 7 Issuing in an authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of an original document when no such original exists, or including in such copy a statement contrary to, or different from, that of the genuine original; or 8 Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry, or official book.
Grave Scandal (1996)
Pia, a bold actress living on top floor of a plush condominium in Makati City sunbathed naked at its penthouse every Sunday morning. She was unaware that the business executives holding office at the adjoining tall buildings reported to office every Sunday morning and, with the use of powerful binoculars, kept on gazing at her while she sunbathed. Eventually, her sunbathing became the talk of the town. 1) What crime, if any, did Pia commit? Explain, 2) What crime, if any, did the business executives commit? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) Pia did not commit a crime, the felony closest to making Pia criminally liable is Grave Scandal, but then such act is not to be considered as highly scandalous and offensive against decency and good customs. In the first place, it was not done in a public place and within public knowledge or view. As a matter of fact it was discovered by the executives accidentally and they have to use binoculars to have public and full view of Pia sunbathing in the nude.
2) The business executives did not commit any crime. Their acts could not be acts of lasciviousness [as there was no overt lustful act), or slander, as the eventual talk of the town, resulting from her sunbathing, is not directly imputed to the business executives, and besides such topic is not intended to defame or put Pia to ridicule.
Perjury (1996)
Sisenando purchased the share of the stockholders of Estrella Corporation in two installments, making him the majority stockholder thereof and eventually, its president. Because the stockholders who sold their stocks failed to comply withtheir warranties attendant to the sale, Sisenando withheld payment of the second installment due on the shares and deposited the money in escrow instead, subject to release once said stockholders comply with their warranties. The stockholders concerned, in turn, rescinded the sale in question and removed Sisenando from the Presidency of the Estrella Corporation, Sisenando then filed a verified complaint for damages against said stockholders in his capacity as president and principal stockholder of Estrella Corporation. In retaliation, the stockholders concerned, after petitioning the
Securities and Exchange Commission to declare the rescission valid, further filed a criminal case for perjury against Sisenando, claiming that the latter perjured himself when he stated under oath in the verification of his complaint for damages that he is the President of the Estrella Corporation when in fact he had already been removed as such. Under the facts of the case, could Sisenando be held liable for perjury? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Sisenando may not be held liable for perjury because It cannot be reasonably maintained that he willfully and deliberately made an assertion of a falsehood when he alleged in the complaint that he is the President of the Corporation, obviously, he made the allegation on the premise that his removal from the presidency is not valid and that is precisely the issue brought about by his complaint to the SEC. It is a fact that Sisenando has been the President of the corporation and it is from that position that the stockholders concerned purportedly removed him, whereupon he filed the complaint questioning his removal. There is no willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood which is a requisite of perjury.
Perjury (1997)
A, a government employee, was administratively charged with immorality for having an affair with B, a co¬employee in the same office who believed him to be single. To exculpate himself, A testified that he was single and was willing to marry B, He induced C to testify and C did testify that B was single. The truth, however, was that A had earlier married D, now a neighbor of C. Is A guilty of perjury? Are A and C guilty of subordination of perjury?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. A is not guilty of perjury because the willful falsehood asserted by him is not material to the charge of
immorality. Whether A is single or married, the charge of immorality against him as a government employee could proceed or prosper. In other words, A's civil status is not a defense to the charge of immorality, hence, not a material matter that could influence the charge. There is no crime of subornation of perjury. The crime is now treated as plain perjury with the one inducing another as the principal inducement, and the latter, as principal by direct participation (People vs. Podol 66 Phil. 365). Since in this case A cannot be held liable for perjury, the matter that he testified to
being immaterial, he cannot therefore be held responsible as a principal by inducement when he induced C to testify on his status. Consequently, C is not liable as principal by direct participation in perjury, having testified on matters not material to an administrative case.
Perjury (2005)
Al Chua, a Chinese national, filed a petition under oath for naturalization, with the Regional Trial Court of Manila. In his petition, he stated that he is married to Leni Chua; that he is living with her in Sampaloc, Manila; that he is of good moral character; and that he has conducted himself in an irreproachable manner during his stay in the Philippines. However, at the time of the filing of the
petition, Leni Chua was already living in Cebu, while Al was living with Babes Toh in Manila, with whom he has an amorous relationship. After his direct testimony, Al Chua withdrew his petition for naturalization.
What crime or crimes, if any, did Al Chua commit? Explain. (5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Al Chua committed perjury. His declaration under oath for naturalization that he is of good moral character and residing at Sampaloc, Manila are false. This information is material to his petition for naturalization. He committed perjury for this wilful and deliberate assertion of falsehood which is contained in a verified petition made for a legal purpose. (Choa v. People, G.R. No. 142011, March 14, 2003)
Crimes Committed by Public Officers
Bribery & Corruption of Public Official (2001)
Deputy Sheriff Ben Rivas received from the RTC Clerk of Court a Writ of Execution in the case of Ejectment filed by Mrs. Maria Estrada vs. Luis Ablan. The judgment being in favor of Estrada, Rivas went to her lawyer's office where he was given the necessary amounts constituting the sheriffs fees and expenses for execution in the total amount of P550.00, aside from P2,000.00 in consideration of prompt
enforcement of the writ from Estrada and her lawyer. The writ was successfully enforced. a) What crime, if any, did the sheriff commit? (3%) b) Was there any crime committed by Estrada and her lawyer and if so, what crime? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) The sheriff committed the crime of Direct Bribery under the second paragraph of Article 210, Revised Penal Code, since the P2,000 was received by him "in consideration" of the prompt enforcement of the writ of execution which is an official duty of the sheriff to do.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER;
a) On the premise that even without the P2,000, Sheriff Ben Rivas had to carry out the writ of execution and not that he would be implementing the writ only because of the P2,000.00, the receipt of the amount by said sheriff may be regarded as a gift received by reason of his office and not as a "consideration" for the performance of an official duty; hence, only indirect Bribery would be committed by said sheriff.
b) On the part of the plaintiff and her lawyer as giver of the bribe-money, the crime is Corruption of Public Officials under Article 212, Revised Penal Code.
Direct Bribery: Infidelity in the Custody of Documents (2005)
During a PNP buy-bust operation, Cao Shih was arrested for selling 20 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) to a poseur-buyer. Cao Shih, through an intermediary, paid Patrick, the Evidence Custodian of the PNP Forensic Chemistry Section, the amount of P500,000.00 in consideration for the destruction by Patrick of the drug. Patrick managed to destroy the drug. State with reasons whether
Patrick committed the following crimes: (7%) 1.] Direct Bribery;
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Patrick committed the crimes of Direct Bribery and Infidelity in the Custody of Documents. When a public officer is called upon to perform or refrain from performing an official act in exchange for a gift, present or consideration given to him (Art. 210, Revised Penal Code), the crime committed is direct bribery. Secondly, he destroyed the shabu which is an evidence in his official custody, thus, constituting infidelity in the custody of documents under Art. 226 of the Revised Penal Code.
2.] Indirect bribery;
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Indirect bribery was not committed because he did not receive the bribe because of his office but in consideration of a crime in connection with his official duty.
3.] Section 3(e) of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act);
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
See. 3(e), R.A. No. 8019 was not committed because there was no actual injury to the government. When there is no specific quantified injury, violation is not committed. (Garcia-Rueda vs Amor, et al., G.R. No. 116938, September 20, 2001)
4.] Obstruction of Justice under PD 1829;
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Patrick committed the crime of obstruction of justice although the feigner penalty imposable on direct bribery or infidelity in the custody of documents shall be imposed. Sec. 1 of P.D. No. 1829 refers merely to the imposition of the higher penalty and does not preclude prosecution for obstruction of justice, even if the same not constitute another offense.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Obstruction of Justice is not committed in this case, because the act of destroying the evidence in his custody is already penalized by another law which imposes a higher penalty. (Sec. 1, P.I). No. 1829)
Jurisdiction; Impeachable Public Officers (2006)
Judge Rod Reyes was appointed by former President Fidel Ramos as Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas for a term of 7 years commencing on July 5,1995. Six months thereafter, a lady stenographer filed with the Office of the Ombudsman a complaint for acts of lasciviousness and with the Supreme Court a petition for
disbarment against him. Forthwith, he filed separate motions to dismiss the complaint for
acts of lasciviousness and petition for disbarment, claiming lack of jurisdiction over his person and office. Are both motions meritorious? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The motion to dismiss the complaint of the Deputy Ombudsman for the acts of lasciviousness should be denied as only the Ombudsman is included in the list of impeachable officers found in Article XI of the 1987 Constitution.
Therefore, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over his prosecution (Office of the Ombudsman vs. CA, G.R. 146486, March 4, 2005). Likewise, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the petition for disbarment, as he is a member of the bar. His motion to dismiss should be denied (See Rule 139 and 139 of the Rules of Court).
Malversation (1994)
Randy, an NBI agent, was issued by the NBI an armalite rifle (Ml6) and a Smith and Wesson Revolver. Cal.
38. After a year, the NBI Director made an inspection of all the firearms issued. Randy, who reported for work that morning, did not show up during the inspection. He went on absence without leave (AWOL). After two years, he surrendered to the NBI the two firearms issued to him. He was charged with malversation of government property before the Sandiganbayan. Randy put up the defense that he did not appropriate the armalite rifle and the revolver for his own use, that the delay in accounting for them does not constitute conversion and that actually the firearms were stolen by his friend, Chiting. Decide the case.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Randy is guilty as charged under Art. 217, RPC. He is accountable for the firearms they issued to him in his official capacity. The failure of Randy to submit the firearms upon demand created the presumption that he converted them for his own use. Even if there is no direct evidence of misappropriation, his failure to account for the government property is enough factual basis for a finding of malversation. Indeed, even his explanation that the guns were stolen is incredible. For if the firearms were actually stolen, he should have reported the matter immediately to the
authorities. (People vs. Baguiran , 20 SCRA 453; Felicilda us. Grospe, GR No. 10294, July 3, 1992)
Malversation (1999)
What constitutes the crime of malversation of public funds or property? (2%) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Malversation of public funds or property is committed by any public officer who, by reason of the duties of his office, is accountable for public funds or property, shall take or misappropriate or shall consent, or through
abandonment or negligence, shall permit any other person to take such public funds or property, wholly or partially, or shall otherwise be guilty of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds or property, (Art, 217, RPC)
Malversation (1999)
A Municipal Treasurer, accountable for public funds or property, encashed with public funds private checks drawn in favor of his wife. The checks bounced, the drawer not having enough cash in the drawee bank. The Municipal Treasurer, in encashing private checks from public funds, violated regulations of his office.
A Municipal Treasurer, accountable for public funds or property, encashed with public funds private checks drawn in favor of his wife. The checks bounced, the drawer not having enough cash in the drawee bank. The Municipal Treasurer, in encashing private checks from public funds, violated regulations of his office.