Differentiate Crimes Mala Prohibita from Crimes Mala In Se.

The difference between Mala in se and Mala Prohibita are as follows:

Mala in se offenses are generally inherently wrong while mala prohibita

becomes wrong only as it is prohibited by law.

Mala in se usually applies to crimes under the revised Penal Code while
Mala prohibita offenses are under special penal laws.

The graduation of penalties and the degree of participation is applied in

Mala in se offenses while it does not apply to Mala prohibita offenses
unless the special law provides.

What is the Pro Rea Principle in Criminal Law? Explain briefly.

The Principle of Pro Rea provides that if there is a conflict in the

interpretation of laws between the prosecution and the accused, the
interpretation that is more favorable to the accused must be sustained.

Victor, with the assistance of his accountant, filed his income tax return for
the year 2012 on March 1, 2013. Ten (10) days after, Victor’s accountant
informed him that he inadvertently underdeclared Victor’s sales by thirty-five
percent (35%). Victor told his accountant, “Ako na bahala, I will file an
amended return and correct the mistake.” Victor amended his income tax
return on April 1, 2013, so that the under-declaration in sales will only be
five percent (5%) to save in the payment of income tax.

Subsequently, the BIR learned of the said under-declaration. Without the

issuance of an assessment, the BIR served a warrant of garnishment upon
Victor to collect the deficiency income tax attributable to the said under-
declaration.

1. a)  Was Victor’s amended income tax return a “regular return” (neither

false or fraudulent), a false return, or a fraudulent return? (2%)

The amended income tax return of Victor is considered fraudulent

 return.

A fraudulent income tax return refers to a tax declaration that has

been intentionally been underdeclared or changed for the purpose of
defrauding the government of the correct income tax due.

In this case, Victor knowingly and intentionally made an under

declaration of his income tax in order to minimize the tax he has to
pay.

Hence, Victor’s tax return is still considered fraudulent regardless of

the percentage he manipulated in his sales in order to minimize his
income tax payment.

2. b)  May the service of the warrant of garnishment in order to collect

the deficiency income tax be considered valid considering that no
assessment was issued? (2%)

No. the warrant of garnishment is not proper.

The NIRC provides that a notice of assessment must fist be given to the
taxpayer, followed by a Final assessment notice. In case the FAN has
become final and executory and no protest has been given by the taxpayer
or no payment was made, a warrant for garnishment may be sustained for
payment of tax.

Q: Can the police conduct a warrantless intrusive search of a vehicle on the sole basis of an
unverified tip relayed by an anonymous informant to apprehend a suspect?

No.

A search warrant need to be applied based on the personal knowledge of

the witness and personally evaluated by the Judge under oath. An
unverified tip is considered hearsay and I cannot be relied on as a basis for
a warrantless search. Hence, a warrantless intrusive search on a vehicle
cannot be done based on a tip as it is a violation of a Constitutional right
against illegal search and seizure.
J was hired by ABC Broadcasting Corp. as a newspaper columnist because of
her talent, skill, experience, and her unique viewpoint as a feminist
advocate. As columnist, she works at her own pleasure with ABC exercising
neither control nor supervision over the contents of her articles.

For failure to post articles in five (5) successive weekly publications of

newspaper, she was advised by the Editor-in-Chief that her contract will no
longer be renewed. J filed an illegal dismissal case claiming that her
dismissal was not grounded upon any just or authorized cause stated under
the law.

Will the case for illegal dismissal prosper? Why or why not? (2.5%)

The illegal dismissal case will prosper.

There is illegal dismissal when termination of employment is not based on

Just and Authorized causes provided for under the Labor Code and the due
process for dismissal is not observed.

In this case, J was not given the 2 notice requirement by the management
which in effect deprived him of his right to be heard.

Therefore, the illegal dismissal case shall prosper.

020 BAR EXAMINATIONS TRIAL CIVIL LAW
(PART 1)

LEGAL EDGE BAR REVIEW CENTER

[email protected] 0942-949-9176 / 0917-894-5356

A.1

A died without a will leaving several personal and real properties. He left B,
a widow and their children as well as C, a paramour and their children. B
filed a petition for Letters of Administration. Upon discovery of the fact that
C and her children entered into an extra-judicial settlement of estate
concerning the decedent's properties, she also filed a complaint for its
annulment. C meanwhile moved for its dismissal saying it should be brought
in the name of the estate since the court had yet to appoint an
administrator.

Will the complaint prosper pending the appointment of an administrator?

(2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes.

The New Civil Code provides that the right to succession are transmitted to
the heirs from the moment of the death of the decedent. With this vested
right, said heirs can institute any proceeding relative to those transmitted
property, rights and obligations.

Here, the pendency of the appointment of an administrator is of no moment

since from the time A died, B can initiate any case relative to the estate.

Accordingly, the complaint can prosper despite the pendency of the

administration proceeding. (SOURCE: RIOFERIO vs. CA, G.R. No. 129008,
January 13, 2004)

A.2

A was a scholar in X University but subsequently transferred to Y University

where he obtained his degree. When he applied for the bar exam, he
secured his transcript from X University but was denied unless he would
refund the equivalent of the scholarship cash he received therefrom.
Apparently, the contract he signed expressly stated that in consideration of
the scholarship granted to him by X University, he waives his right to
transfer to another school without making such refund. Is the waiver valid?
(2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: No.

No The waiver is not valid. Under the law, rights may be waived as long as
it is not contrary to law, customs, morals and public policy. In this case, the
waiver is valid as it is contrary with public policy. Hence, the waiver is void.

Page 1 of 11

2020 BAR EXAMINATIONS TRIAL CIVIL LAW LEGAL EDGE BAR REVIEW CENTER
(PART 1)

While the Civil Code recognizes waiver of rights, it should not be contrary to
sound public policy. Otherwise, it is deemed void.

As scholarships are merited and earned, asking A to refund tuition and other
fees because he decided to transfer to another institution defeats the
purpose for which they are given.
Accordingly, the waiver he made is not valid.
(SOURCE: CUI vs. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY, G.R. No. L-15127, 30 May 1961)

A.3

A saw B at a hotel lobby and invited him to a party to which he was one of
the guests. Since B was not doing anything, he reluctantly went with A.
When he was at the buffet table, C, the assistant of the birthday celebrator,
within hearing distance asked him to leave the event as soon as he was
done eating because he was not an invited guest. B felt humiliated and
made a scene, saying he would not have gone to the party were it not for A,
whom he hadn't seen for so long. So, he filed a case in court for payment of
damages. Will the case prosper? (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The case will not prosper.

Under the doctrine of Damnum Absque Injuria, a person who voluntarily

exposes himself to harm, injury or in this case, humiliation cannot claim for
damages.

Given the circumstances of the case, the birthday celebrant has the right to
request B to leave since it is his party. B joined the party even if he knew
that he was not invited in by the host.

Hence, the case will not prosper.

No.

Under the doctrine of violenti non fit injuria, any person who voluntarily and
knowingly exposes himself to danger is precluded from pursuing recovery of
damages. If there is injury sustained, it is deemed self-inflicted.

In the instant case, C was within her right to ask B to leave since he was not
invited. In order not to humiliate him though, she made sure only he could
hear the message and were it not for B making a scene, other guests would
not have come to know about it.
Hence, the case should not prosper.
(SOURCE: NIKKO HOTEL vs. REYES, GR No. 154259, February 28, 2005)

A.4

A, a Filipino, filed a petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage with B,

a German national, before the Makati RTC. In the meantime, B was able to
obtain a divorce decree from Germany. Said decree explicitly provided that B
should have parental custody of the children. For this reason, he moved for
dismissal of the petition, which the court granted. Subsequently, A filed a
motion, asking the court to continue with the proceeding but only with
respect to the issue on custody of children. B, vehemently opposed, saying
that the court had already dismissed the case. Should the motion be
granted? (2.5%)

Page 2 of 11

2020 BAR EXAMINATIONS TRIAL CIVIL LAW LEGAL EDGE BAR REVIEW CENTER
(PART 1)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes.

Divorce decrees obtained by foreigners in other countries are recognized in

our jurisdiction, but the legal effects thereof, such as custody must still be
determined by our courts. Before our courts can give the effect of res
judicata to a foreign judgment, it must be shown that the parties opposed to
the judgment had been given ample opportunity to do so.

In the present case, A was not given such opportunity to challenge the
decree.

Therefore, the court was correct in setting the issue for hearing to determine
the issue of parental custody, care, and support.

(SOURCE: ROEHR vs. RODRIGUEZ, G.R. No. 142820, 20 June 2003)

A.5
A and B had an extra-marital affair, resulting to the former getting pregnant.
Because she stopped working, she filed a complaint in court, asking for
support of her unborn child. The court dismissed it for lack of cause of
action. A moved to amend the complaint, stating that as a result of the
intercourse, she gave birth to a baby girl. The court, however, ruled that no
amendment is allowed since the original complaint averred no cause of
action. Is the dismissal proper? (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No.

The Civil Code provides that a conceived child, yet unborn, is given by law a
provisional personality of its own for all purposes favorable to it. As such,
said child may be subject of juridical relations as if he or she were already
born.

Here, A filed her complaint at the time she was already pregnant.
Therefore, the court should not have dismissed it for clearly, there was
cause of action. (SOURCE: Quimiging v. Icao, G.R. No. 26795, July 31,
1979)

A.6

A got pregnant but decided to pursue an abortion since B, the father, was
married and therefore could not openly support the child. She met with C, a
physician, who performed the abortion for a fee. When B found out about
the abortion, he was already legally separated with his wife and would have
wanted to continue his relationship with A. For this reason, he filed a petition
for damages against C, the doctor, for performing an illegal act, resulting
into the death of his supposed child. C opposed the same, claiming it was A
who convinced him to do it. Should B receive damages? (2.5%)

Page 3 of 11

2020 BAR EXAMINATIONS TRIAL CIVIL LAW LEGAL EDGE BAR REVIEW CENTER
(PART 1)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No.

The concept of provisional personality under the Civil Code cannot be

invoked to obtain damages in behalf of an aborted child. Also, by reason of
equity, a person who willfully reneged on his obligation should receive no
compensation.

Here, B was obviously indifferent to A's pregnancy, whose decision to abort

the child robbed him of his personality.

Hence, B should not be entitled to damages.

(SOURCE: GELUZ vs. CA, 2 SCRA 801, G.R. No. L-16439 July 20, 1961)

A.7

A and B met and became sweethearts in 2001. They planned to get married,
thus they applied for a marriage license in September 2004. They had their
first sexual relation sometime in October of the same year and had regularly
engaged in sex thereafter. When the couple went back to the Office of the
Civil Registrar, the marriage license had already expired. Hence, in order to
push through with the plan, in lieu of a marriage license, they executed an
affidavit in August of 2005 stating that they had been living together as
husband and wife for at least five years. The couple got married on the same
date. Nevertheless, after the ceremony, petitioner and respondent went back
to their respective homes and did not live together as husband and wife. Is
their marriage valid? (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, the marriage is not valid.

The five cohabitation rule is one of the exceptions wherein no marriage

license is required. Under this rule, the couple must be cohabitating as
husband and wife continuously for five years with no impediment to marry
each other.

In this case, A and B were in fact not living together as husband and wife for
five year which means that they are not exempted from securing a valid
marriage license.

Therefore, being married without a valid marriage license makes their

marriage void ab initio.
No.

The law dispenses with the marriage license requirement for a man and a
woman who have lived together and exclusively with each other as husband
and wife for a continuous and unbroken period of at least five years before
the marriage. However, cohabitation here should be actual and continuous.

In this case, the parties merely engaged in sex, and did not live together at
all, clearly falling short of the continuous cohabitation required by law.

Accordingly, the marriage should be declared void for lack of a valid

marriage license. (SOURCE: De Castro v. De Castro, G.R. No. 160172, 13
February 2008)

A.8

A and B got married in 1989. They are both medical practitioners. They
begot 3 children. 11 years later, A sought to annul her marriage with B,
claiming that he is a homosexual as evidenced by his unusual closeness to
his male companions and that he had concealed his homosexuality from her
prior to their

Page 4 of 11

2020 BAR EXAMINATIONS TRIAL CIVIL LAW LEGAL EDGE BAR REVIEW CENTER
(PART 1)

marriage. She testified that she once caught him talking to a man
affectionately over the phone and she confirmed all her fear when she saw
him kiss a man. Should the court grant the annulment based on these
factual allegations? (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No.
The law provides that it is concealment of and not homosexuality per se that
is a ground to annul a marriage. In order to show this, it must be sufficiently
and actually established that the person is a homosexual and that he
factually concealed the same.

In the case at bar, there was no evidence presented that would show B is a
homosexual except this public perception which is speculative. Also, there
was no proof that he hid it even if he really is.

Hence, the court should deny the petition.

(SOURCE: Almelor v. Regional Trial Court, G.R. No. 179620, 26 August
2008)

A.9

A, who was 80 years old stayed in the US for several years. When he
returned home, he stayed with his wife B in Antipolo City for a few months.
During this time, their children alleged that their mother overdosed B which
caused the latter’s health to deteriorate. At any rate, A subsequently went to
Baguio to attend a corporate assembly. After said meeting, he did not return
to Antipolo and instead lived at Cleveland Condominium in Makati. For this
reason, B filed a petition for habeas corpus to have the custody of his
husband alleging that A and their children refused her demands to see and
visit her husband. Does B have a cause of action? (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

None.

The marital obligation of one spouse to live with the other under the law is
not legally demandable. Certainly, he or she cannot be compelled to change
his or her feelings because that is something only he or she can decide
upon.

Here, A obviously no longer wanted to live with B as evidenced by his

decision to live in Makati. Accordingly, the court should dismiss the petition
for lack of cause of action.
(SOURCE: Ilusorio v. Bildner, G.R. No. 139789, 12 May 2000)

Page 5 of 11

2020 BAR EXAMINATIONS TRIAL LEGAL EDGE BAR REVIEW CENTER

CIVIL LAW (PART 1)

A.10

A contracted two marriages during his lifetime. The first one with B, out of
which 5 children were born. The other with C, with whom he had no children
but lived with her for 18 years from the time of their marriage up to his
death. C subsequently sought the dissolution of their conjugal partnership
assets and the settlement of A's estate. In fact, she filed a petition for letters
of administration, which B opposed for her failure to state a cause of action.
The Court subsequently denied the petition because C allegedly had no legal
personality considering her marriage with A is bigamous and therefore null
and void. Do you agree with the Court's ruling? Explain. (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No.

Under the law, a person would qualify as an interested person who has a
direct interest in the estate of a decedent by virtue of their cohabitation,
making him or her a co-owner of the properties they had acquired during
said cohabitation.

Here, C lived with A as husband and wife for almost 18 years. Even if her
marriage is bigamous, she has ipso facto become a co-owner of their
properties.

Hence, the court is not correct. C has legal standing.

(SOURCE: San Luis v. San Luis, G.R. No. 133743, 6 February 2007)

A.11

A filed a case against B for her civil liability arising from criminal offense of
slander. The court granted the same and since B's personal properties were
insufficient to satisfy the judgment, the sheriff levied and auctioned the
property of B. An auction sale was held with A as the highest bidder . Almost
one year after the certificate of sale was issued, B's husband filed a
complaint for the annulment of certificate of sale and damages with
preliminary injunction against A. He argued that since they were governed
by the conjugal partnership of gains, their property should not answer for
obligation arising from B's criminal liability. Is the husband correct? (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes.

Under the law, the conjugal partnership is not liable to make advance
payments for the liability of the debtor-spouse. This is unlike in the system
of absolute community where liabilities incurred by either spouse by reason
of a crime or quasi-delict is chargeable to it, in the absence or insufficiency
of the exclusive property of the debtor-spouse.

In the instant case, the subject property was part of their conjugal
partnership.

Page 6 of 11

2020 BAR EXAMINATIONS TRIAL CIVIL LAW LEGAL EDGE BAR REVIEW CENTER
(PART 1)

Hence, it cannot be used to satisfy B's obligation.

(SOURCE: Buado v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 145222, 24 April 2009)

A.12

A and B were married in 1989 and begot a child in December 1990. After 2
years, A filed a petition to have his marriage nullified on the ground of
bigamy since B was already married to C when he got married to her.
According to A, C was still alive and living in Loyola Heights, QC, which is
near their house in Fairview. The court granted the nullity and ruled that the
son was an illegitimate child and the custody was awarded to B, while A was
granted visitation rights. Meanwhile, B argued that there was nothing in the
law granting “visitation rights in favor of the putative father of an illegitimate
child”. So, she raised said issue on appeal. After the requested oral
argument, the appellate court reversed the trial court's ruling and held the
son to be that of C and not of A, making him the legitimate child of B and C.
Both A and B appealed this ruling, with both of them claiming that the child
was their illegitimate child. B meanwhile said she had separated with C a
long time ago and didn't have sex with him.

1. a)  Is the appellate court correct in declaring the son as the legitimate
child of B and C? (2.5%)
2. b)  Can A dispute the legitimate status of the child and claim him to be
his illegitimate son instead? (2.5%)
3. c)  CanB,themother,refutethesame?(2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
 1. a)  Yes.

The law favors legitimacy as it serves the best interest of the child. In
the absence of any evidence, the presumption is that any child born or
conceived inside a valid marriage is considered legitimate.

Here, A did not offer any concrete evidence that she and C had no
sexual relations or physical contact other than her claim they never
had sex. In fact, they both live in Quezon City which made physical
contact possible.

Accordingly, the appellate court is correct in declaring the child the

legitimate son of B and C.

2. b)  No.

Well-settled is the rule that only the husband, or in proper cases, his
heirs, can impugn the legitimacy of a child, as it is a strictly personal
right.

Since the marriage of A and B was void from the very beginning, he
never became her husband and thus never acquired any right to
impugn said legitimate status.

Hence, A has no legal personality.

Page 7 of 11

2020 BAR EXAMINATIONS TRIAL CIVIL LAW LEGAL EDGE BAR REVIEW CENTER
(PART 1)

c) No.

The language of the law is unmistakable. An assertion by the mother against

the legitimacy of her child cannot affect the legitimacy of a child born or
conceived within a valid marriage.

Besides, as stated, she did not offer any evidence that would prove the child
was the son of A. Therefore, B likewise has no legal personality to question
her child's status.
(SOURCE: Concepcion v CA, G.R. No. 123450, August 32, 2005)

A.13
A applied for original registration of title over a land situated in Obando,
Bulacan. The Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Director of the
Bureau of Forest Development opposed the application on the principal
ground that the land applied for is within the unclassified region
denominated as forest lands and is not a disposable and alienable portion of
the public domain. However, upon on-the-spot inspection conducted, it was
discovered that the subject land was devoid of any forest growth and forms
part of a well-developed and 100 percent producing fishponds. Two (2)
houses of light materials were erected within the area for the caretakers’
temporary dwelling. For this reason, the court granted the application.

a) Do you agree with the Court's ruling? (2.5%)

b) Is A entitled to judicial confirmation of title? (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

1. a)  No.

The classification of public lands is an exclusive prerogative of the

Executive Department of the Government and not of the Courts. In the
absence of such classification, the land remains as unclassified land
until it is released therefrom and rendered open to disposition.

In effect, what the court has done is to release the subject property
from the unclassified category, which is beyond its competence and
jurisdiction.

Therefore, the court should not have granted the application.

2. b)  No.

Under the law, all lands of the public domain belong to the State, and
that the State is the source of any asserted right to ownership in land
and charged with the conservation of such patrimony. If land is within
the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Forest Development, it would be
beyond the jurisdiction of the Cadastral Court to register it under the
Torrens System

Page 8 of 11

2020 BAR EXAMINATIONS TRIAL CIVIL LAW LEGAL EDGE BAR REVIEW CENTER
(PART 1)
Since the subject property is still unclassified, whatever possession A may
have had, and, however long, cannot ripe into private ownership.

Therefore, A should not be issued a judicial confirmation of title. (SOURCE:

Director of Lands v CA, G.R No. L-58667, June 22, 1984)

A.14

A company is a corporation engaged in providing goods and services to

shipping companies. One of its clients was B company. Based on their
crewing agreement, A was supposed to make advances for the crew's
expenses. Pursuant to these advances, PNB was instructed by X bank to pay
the amount of US$14,000 to A company by crediting PNB’s account with Y
bank, as per order of B company. However, the former bank promptly sent
another message to PNB with the instructions that only the amount of
US$1,400 should be given to A company. However, PNB still effected
another payment in the amount of US$14,000, purporting to be another
transmittal of reimbursement from B company.

More than six years later, PNB filed against A company for refund of
US$14,000 after it discovered its error, based on a constructive trust under
Article 1456 of Civil Code. The court dismissed the complaint, ruling that the
case falls squarely under Article 2154 on solutio indebiti and not under
Article 1456 on constructive trust. Therefore, it was already barred by
prescription since a quasi-contract must be commenced within 6 years. Can
PNB still ask for a refund? (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No.

In both constructive trust and solutio indebiti, there is no pre-existing

relationship, neither delict nor quasi-delict, but a quasi-contractual relation
may be forced upon the parties to avoid a case of unjust enrichment. There
being no express consent, it is nonetheless presumed to the end that a
recipient of benefits or favors resulting from lawful, voluntary and unilateral
acts of one, may not be unjustly enriched at the expense of another.

Here, if A company insists on solutio indebiti, it is already barred by

prescription. If constructive trust, laches has already set in considering there
was an unreasonable delay in the filing of the case.

Accordingly, PNB can no longer ask for a refund. (SOURCE: PNB v CA, G.R
No. 97995, January 21 1993)
A.15

Exposé is a radio documentary program aired every morning over DZRC-AM

which is owned by Filipinas Broadcasting Network, Inc. (FBNI). In a series of
shows, the hosts of said program exposed various alleged complaints from
students, teachers and parents against Matute University and its

Page 9 of 11

2020 BAR EXAMINATIONS TRIAL CIVIL LAW LEGAL EDGE BAR REVIEW CENTER
(PART 1)

administrators. Claiming that the broadcasts were defamatory, Matute and

the dean of Matute's College of Medicine, filed a complaint for payment of
moral damages. Will the case prosper? (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes.

Although a juridical person is generally not entitled to moral damages

because, unlike a natural person, it cannot experience physical suffering or
such sentiments as wounded feelings, serious anxiety, mental anguish or
moral shock, it can collect the same if the moral damages are claimed
pursuant to cases of libel, slander or any other form of defamation. Under
the provision on award of moral damages, there is no distinction whether
the plaintiff is a natural or juridical person.

Since what is involved here is a complaint for libel, Matute University can
ask for payment of moral damages.

As such, Matute’s case should prosper.

(SOURCE: Filipinas Broadcasting Network v AGO Medical, G.R No. 141994,
January 17, 2005)

A.16

A, a citizen of the United States of America (USA), but of Filipino parentage

and a resident of Guam, USA, filed a petition for the adoption of minors B
and C, who are the natural children of her deceased brother, whose wife
went to Italy, re-married there and now has two children by her second
marriage and no longer communicated with her children. The court denied
the petition because A did not secure the consent of the mother. Is the court
correct? (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No.

The general requirement of consent and notice to the natural parents is

intended to protect the natural parental relationship from unwarranted
interference by interlopers, and to insure the opportunity to safeguard the
best interests of the child in the manner of the proposed adoption.

When A filed her petition with the trial court, Rep. Act No. 8552 was already
in effect. Section 9 thereof provides that if the written consent of the
biological parents cannot be obtained, the written consent of the legal
guardian of the minors will suffice.

If, as claimed by petitioner, that the biological mother of the minors had
indeed abandoned them, she should thus have adduced the written consent
of their legal guardian.

Page 10 of 11

2020 BAR EXAMINATIONS TRIAL LEGAL EDGE BAR REVIEW CENTER

CIVIL LAW (PART 1)

A.17

A obtained a judgment against B for the payment of a sum of money. Failing

to find or identify a property of B to be levied, he then proceeded to file a
claim in the intestate proceeding of the estate of B's father. The estate had
not yet been properly probated. Could A succeed in collecting the debt as
against the estate of the debtor's deceased parent? (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No.

Based on jurisprudence, a creditor of any of the heirs of a deceased person

is entitled to collect his claim out of the property which pertains by
inheritance to said heirs, only after the debts of the testate or intestate have
been paid. Also, a person who is not a creditor of a deceased, testate or
intestate, has no right to intervene either in the proceedings brought in
connection with the estate or in the settlement of the same.

In this case, A is not a creditor of the deceased and he seeks to collect his
claim out of the inheritance of B, an heir, before the net assets of the
intestate estate have been determined.

Therefore, A has no legal standing to participate or to intervene.

(SOURCE: LITONJUA v. MONTILLA, GR No.L-4170, January 31, 1952,,
90PHIL757, 90 PHIL 757)

-NOTHING FOLLOWS-

Page 11 of 11

DE DAVAO UNIVERSITY – COLLEGE OF LAW

CRIMINAL LAW - DAY ONE (Bar Exams 2020/2021) QUESTIONS WITH SUGGESTED ANSWERS

CRIMINAL LAW

I.

Raven, a Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Agent, approached Josh and
asked him to look for marijuana. Josh declined and said he does not know anybody
who sells marijuana. Raven went to Josh three times to convince him to provide
marijuana for him. Because of the insistence of Raven, Josh made efforts to look for
marijuana that he can sell to Raven until he was able to get marijuana. Josh gave
the 10 grams of marijuana to Raven and Raven handed Josh P’10,000.00. Upon
receipt of the money, Raven arrested Josh for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under
Republic Act 9165.
Would Josh incur criminal liability? What defenses could Josh raise? Justify your
Josh is not criminally liable.

Instigation can be raised as a defense wherein a person is instigated to commit a crime.

Instigation precludes the offender from being criminally liable as the criminal act does not
originate from him but from the instigator.

In the given facts, Raven instigated Josh into selling him the marijuana which makes the latter
not the author of the crime.

Therefore, Josh is not criminally liable.

answer.

Josh will not incur criminal liability and he can raise as his defense that there is the
absolutory cause of instigation.

There is instigation when a law enforcement officer practically induces the would-be
accused into the commission of the offense.

In the instant case, Raven, a law enforcement agent, induced Josh to sell him
marijuana. It was through the insistence and persistence of Raven that Josh sold
the dangerous drugs to Raven.

Hence, Josh will not incur criminal liability as there is instigation.

II.
Sabrina and Raffy got married on February 14, 1990, after the effectivity of the
Family Code. Because of serious business setbacks, Raffy has been very harsh and
cruel to Sabrina. Raffy would often verbally abuse and physically assault Sabrina
even on the most trivial of matters. Despite the abuses, Sabrina stayed in the
marriage for the sake of their 3 children. Eventually, Sabrina was diagnosed with
Battered Woman Syndrome.

One night, Raffy went home only to find out that the dinner served to him was no
longer hot. Raffy cursed and threw hurtful words to Sabrina. All of a sudden,
Sabrina snapped, took the kitchen knife nearby and started to stab her husband.
Raffy died due to 28 stab wounds. Sabrina is now prosecuted for Parricide for the
death of Raffy.

Sabrina claims that there is an exculpatory circumstance that would justify the
killing of Raffy. However, the prosecutor contends that there was no valid self-
defense as not all the elements are present.

a.) Is Sabrina correct in claiming that there is an exculpatory circumstance? Why or

why not?

Yes. Sabrina is correct in claiming the exculpatory circumstance of self defense.

Battered woman syndrome is appreciated as a defense when there are at least 2

episodes of the cycle of battering which has 3 phases. The first phase is the
tension building state, second is the acute battering stage and third is the loving
and tranquil phase.

In this case, Sabrina has already been diagnosed with Battered woman syndrome
which means that the 2 episodes of the battering cycle has been completed.

Therefore, she is entitled to raise battered woman syndrome to exculpate her

from killing her husband.

b.) AssumingthatSabrinadoesnotsufferfromBatteredWomanSyndrome,couldsheclaim
the mitigating circumstance of Incomplete Self-Defense? Why or why not?

1. a.)  Sabrina is correct in claiming that there is an exculpatory circumstance.

Battered Woman Syndrome is considered as an absolutory cause. Any

woman diagnosed of suffering from this and commits a crime because of this
syndrome incurs no criminal liability.

Since Sabrina has been diagnosed with Battered Woman Syndrome, she has
no criminal liability for killing her husband Raffy.
 2. b.)  If Sabrina is not suffering from Battered Woman Syndrome, she cannot
claim the mitigating circumstance of Incomplete Self-defense. The
indispensable requisite in Self-defense is unlawful aggression. Without
unlawful aggression, there can be no Self-defense, complete or incomplete.

Page 1 of 6
Contributor: Atty Robert Michael N. Razon

aat

ATENEO DE DAVAO UNIVERSITY – COLLEGE OF LAW

CRIMINAL LAW - DAY ONE (Bar Exams 2020/2021) QUESTIONS WITH SUGGESTED ANSWERS
In the instant cases, there is no unlawful aggression. Shouting and throwing of
hurtful words are not considered as unlawful aggression.

Hence, Sabrina cannot claim Incomplete Self-Defense.

III. Differentiate Crimes Mala Prohibita from Crimes Mala In Se.

The differences between crimes mala prohibita and crimes mala in se are the
following:

1. Crimes mala prohibita are violations of mere rules of convenience designed

to secure a more orderly regulation of the affairs of the society while crimes
mala in se are those so serious in their effects on society as to call for almost
unanimous condemnation of its members;
2. Crimes mala prohibita generally refers to acts made criminal under special
laws while crimes mala in se generally refers to felonies defined and
penalized by the Revised Penal Code; and
3. In acts mala prohibita, the inquiry is if the law has been violated while in acts
mala in se, the intent governs.

IV.

What is the Pro Rea Principle in Criminal Law? Explain briefly.

The Pro Rea Principle in Criminal Law provides that

V.

The MV Celeste, a Panamanian Cargo Vessel, was boarded and ransacked by pirates
led by Captain Morgan, in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. The next day, the
Philippine Coast Guard, while patrolling, came across a boat who had engine
trouble. The coast guard noticed that the crew of the stranded boat fit the
description of the pirates that attacked MV Celeste the day before. As such, the
Philippine Coast Guard placed the crew of the stranded boat under arrest and
charged them with Qualified Piracy in the Regional trial Court of Butuan City.

Does the Philippines have jurisdiction over the case considering it was committed
outside of Philippine territory?

Yes, the Philippines has jurisdiction to try the Qualified Piracy case that happened in
the Pacific Ocean.

Under Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code, the Philippines will still have jurisdiction
for felonies defined and penalized under Title 1 of Book 2 of the Revised Penal Code
under Crimes against the Law of Nations. Qualified Piracy is one of the felonies
defined and penalized under Title 1 on Crimes Against the Law of Nations.
Hence, the Philippines has jurisdiction over the case.

VI.

Peter and Vanessa recently got married. Since Peter just recently graduated from
college and was still jobless, the newly-wed couple decided to live together with the
parents of Vanessa. One weekend, while Peter was looking for his car keys, he saw
the Rolex Daytona of his father-in-law, Ronnie. Seeing nobody was around, he
pocketed the watch and eventually sold it. After several days, Ronnie realized that
his Rolex Daytona was missing. Ronnie then reviewed the CCTV and saw Peter
pocket the watch. Ronnie filed a criminal case against Peter.

Page 2 of 6
Contributor: Atty Robert Michael N. Razon

statute, the courts should resolve the ambiguity in favor of the accused. Any doubt
in the interpretation

in construing an ambiguous criminal

and application of penal laws must be resolved in favor of the accused.

aat

ATENEO DE DAVAO UNIVERSITY – COLLEGE OF LAW

CRIMINAL LAW - DAY ONE (Bar Exams 2020/2021) QUESTIONS WITH SUGGESTED ANSWERS

Is Peter criminally liable for taking the watch of his father-in-law, Ronnie? Is Peter
civilly liable? Justify your answer.

Peter will not incur criminal liability but only civil liability.

Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code provides that in the crime of Theft, if it is
committed against ascendants or relatives by affinity in the same line, there shall
be no criminal liability, but only civil liability.

Since Peter committed the crime of Theft against his father-in-law, Ronnie, he falls
within the coverage of Article 332 and shall not incur any criminal liability.
However, Peter shall be held civilly liable.
VII.

The USS Trump, a United States of America warship, was visiting Manila because of
joint military exercises with their Philippine counterparts. One night, two crew
members of the USS trump had a fist fight where one of the persons died. The fact
of death was reported by the US Embassy in Manila to the Department of Foreign
Affairs.

The Manila Police District, getting information of what happened, wants to arrest
the USS Trump crew member who killed his companion. The Captain of the USS
Trump refused to surrender the custody of the crew member contending that the
Philippines has no jurisdiction. Is the contention of the Captain of the USS Trump
correct? Justify your answer.

The Captain of the USS Trump is correct in contending that the Philippines has no
jurisdiction.

Under the characteristic of criminal law of territoriality, penal laws of the Philippines
are enforceable only within its territory. Since the killing of USS Trump happened
under Philippine territory, under the territoriality principle, the Philippines has
jurisdiction over it.

However, this general rule admits of some exceptions. One of these exceptions is
when the crime is committed on board a foreign warship while in Philippine waters.
This is so as foreign warships are considered to be extensions of territory of the
country to which they belong and cannot be subjected to the laws of another state.

Since the USS Trump is a foreign warship, the Philippines has no jurisdiction over
the killing that happened onboard while in Philippine territorial waters.

VIII.

Frank, Stephen and Jeffrey decided to rob the house of Rachel. The trio then all
prepared the instruments they will use in committing the robbery, such as crowbars
and ropes. On their way to the house of Rachel, they met Ace. They told Ace that
they will rob the house of Rachel and convinced Ace to serve as a lookout. Frank,
Stephen and Jeffrey broke the door and the floor at the back of the house of
Rachel. Ace just stayed outside. After divesting the house of all its jewelries and
cash, they all fled.

While running away from the crime scene, George, the brother of Frank, passed by
them. Thinking that their car broke down, George asked them to board his pick-up
truck. While loading the stolen items to the pick-up truck, the responding police car
chanced upon them and apprehended them.

Frank, Stephen, Jeffrey, Ace and George are now being charged with Robbery with
Force Upon Things, with the allegation of the aggravating circumstance that a door
and a floor was broken in the commission of the crime. They were all indicted as
Principals.

1. a.)  Is there conspiracy between and among Frank, Stephen, Jeffrey, Ace and
George? Why or why not?
2. b.)  Should the alleged aggravating circumstance of a door and floor be
broken in the commission of the crime be appreciated?

Page 3 of 6
Contributor: Atty Robert Michael N. Razon

aat

ATENEO DE DAVAO UNIVERSITY – COLLEGE OF LAW

CRIMINAL LAW - DAY ONE (Bar Exams 2020/2021) QUESTIONS WITH SUGGESTED ANSWERS

c.) What are the individual levels of participation of Frank, Stephen, Jeffrey, Ace
and George, if any? Should they all be charged as principals? Explain.

1. a.)
ThereisnoconspiracybetweenandamongFrank,Stephen,Jeffrey,AceandGeorge.

There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement in the

commission of a crime and decide to commit it.

In the instant case, only Frank, Stephen and Jeffrey came to an agreement
to the commission of the crime and decided to commit it. Ace is not a co-
conspirator as he only adhered to the agreement. George is also not a co-
conspirator as he did not know of the agreement to commit the crime at all.

2. b.)
No,theaggravatingcircumstanceofadoorandfloorbebrokenshouldnolongerbe
appreciated in the crime of Robbery with Force Upon Things as this
aggravating circumstance is already inherent in the said crime.
3. c.)  Frank, Stephen and Jeffrey are the principals by direct participation as
they participated in the commission of the crime directly by overt acts. Since
there is conspiracy between and among them, the act of one is considered
the act of all.

Ace should be considered as an accomplice as he only adhered to the plan to

commit the crime. His simultaneous act of being the lookout made him an
accomplice. George has no criminal liability as he was not aware at all that
Frank, Stephen, Jeffrey, and Ace committed a crime.
 IX.

Are penal laws to be applied prospectively or retroactively?

As a general rule, penal laws are applied prospectively.

However, as an exception to the general rule, when the penal law is favorable or
lenient to the accused, the penal law shall be applied retrospectively.

By way of exceptions to the exception, there shall be no retrospective application

even if favorable to the accused if the law expressly prohibits for its retroactive
application or if the accused is a habitual criminal.

X.

Edwin, already a habitual delinquent, was convicted of Direct Assault. In imposing

his sentence, the court did not provide an indeterminate sentence. Edwin raised this
in his Motion for Reconsideration, alleging that Direct Assault is not included as one
of the crimes in habitual delinquency. Rule on the contention of Edwin. Explain
briefly.

The contention of Edwin is without merit.

Although Edwin is correct in pointing out that Direct Assault is not one of the crimes
in considering habitual delinquency, he failed to consider that he is already a
habitual delinquent.

Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, it provides that the law shall not apply to
those who are habitual delinquents. Hence, the court was correct in not applying
the Indeterminate Sentence Law in imposing the penalty of Edwin for Direct
Assault.

Page 4 of 6
Contributor: Atty Robert Michael N. Razon

aat

ATENEO DE DAVAO UNIVERSITY – COLLEGE OF LAW

A.)

CRIMINAL LAW - DAY ONE (Bar Exams 2020/2021) QUESTIONS WITH SUGGESTED ANSWERS

XI.
Aris is convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned for 15 years and 1 month in one
case, to be imprisoned for 12 years and 3 months in a second case, to be
imprisoned for 10 years and 6 months in a third case and to be imprisoned for 8
years and 1 month in a fourth case. What will be the total period of the
imprisonment of Aris?

The total duration of the service of sentence of Aris is 40 years.

Under Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code, there shall be successive service of
sentence if the sentences imposed cannot be served simultaneously, starting with
the most severe.

Based on the said provision, the total period for the service of sentence of Aris
should be 45 years and 11 months, the total sum of all the sentences.

However, the same article likewise provides that the maximum service of sentence
shall not exceed 40 years.

B.)

Hence, the total period of imprisonment of Aris is only up to 40 years.

Gino is sentenced to be imprisoned for 16 years and 3 months in one case and to
suffer Temporary Absolute Disqualification for 6 years and 6 months in a second
case. How long is the total duration of the service of the penalty?

The total duration of the service of sentence of Gino is 16 years and 3 months.

Under Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code, the convict shall serve his penalties
simultaneously if the nature of the penalties will so permit.

In the case at bar, imprisonment and temporary absolute disqualification can be

served simultaneously.

Hence, the total duration of the service of the penalty is 16 years and 3 months
only as these are simultaneously served.

C.)

Julius is sentenced to be imprisoned for 11 years and 2 months in one case, to be

imprisoned for 10 years and 2 months in a second case, to be imprisoned for 8
years and 3 months in a third case and to be imprisoned for 6 years and 3 months
in a fourth case. How long shall the convict be imprisoned?

The total duration of the service of sentence of Julius is 33 years and 6 months.
Under Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code, there shall be successive service of
sentence if the sentences imposed cannot be served simultaneously, starting with
the most severe.

Based on the said provision, the total period for the service of sentence of Aris
should be 45 years and 11 months, the total sum of all the sentences.

However, the same article likewise provides that the maximum duration of the
convict’s sentence shall not be more than the three-fold the length of time
corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed.

In the case at bar, the most severe penalty is 11 years and 2 months. Applying the
three-fold rule, the total duration of service of sentence shall be 33 years and 6
months.

Hence, applying the three-fold rule, the total duration of the service of the penalty
of Julius is 33 years and 6 months.

D.) Peter is sentenced to be imprisoned for 10 years and 2 months in one case, to
be imprisoned for 6 years and 4 months in a second case and to be imprisoned for
3 years and 6 months in a third case. How long shall the convict be imprisoned?

Page 5 of 6
Contributor: Atty Robert Michael N. Razon

aat

ATENEO DE DAVAO UNIVERSITY – COLLEGE OF LAW

CRIMINAL LAW - DAY ONE (Bar Exams 2020/2021) QUESTIONS WITH SUGGESTED ANSWERS

The total duration of the service of sentence of Gino is 20 years.

Under Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code, the convict shall serve his penalties
successively if the nature of the penalties will not permit its service simultaneously.

In the case at bar, the total duration of the service of sentence is 20 years, with the
most severe to be served first.

A.)

Hence, the total duration of the service of the penalty of Peter is 20 years.

XII.
Milo is convicted of Homicide with a penalty of Reclusion Temporal. There are three
aggravating and two mitigating circumstances. What will be the range of his
minimum penalty and his maximum penalty?

The maximum penalty is Reclusion Temporal, in its maximum period. It will be

imposed in its maximum period as after offsetting the three aggravating and two
mitigating circumstances, there is still one aggravating circumstance remaining.

Based on the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum period will be anywhere in
Prision Mayor, the period next lower in degree.

A such, the range of the penalty of Milo will be Prision Mayor to Reclusion Temporal
Maximum.

B.) Lorence is convicted for Homicide for killing his brother. He surrendered
voluntarily to the police and during arraignment pleaded guilty to the charge. What
will be the range of his minimum penalty and his maximum penalty?

The maximum penalty is Reclusion Temporal, in its minimum period. It will be

imposed in its minimum period as after offsetting the one aggravating (relationship)
and two mitigating (voluntary surrender and voluntary plea of guilt) circumstances,
there is still one mitigating circumstance remaining.

Based on the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum period will be anywhere in
Prision Mayor, the period next lower in degree.

As such, the range of the penalty of Lorence will be Prision Mayor to Reclusion
Temporal Minimum.

C.) Erwin is convicted with Frustrated Homicide. It was proven that he acted with
Passion and Obfuscation. He likewise voluntarily entered a plea of guilt. What will
be the range of his minimum penalty and his maximum penalty?

Erwin shall be sentenced with Prision Mayor, the penalty for Frustrated Homicide.
However, under Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code provides that when there are
two or more mitigating circumstances and there are no aggravating circumstances,
the penalty to be imposed shall be the penalty next lower to that prescribed by law.

As such, the maximum period shall be Prision Correccional, to be imposed in its

medium period as there are no longer any circumstances present.

Based on the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum period will be anywhere in
Arrestp Mayor, the period next lower in degree.

Hence, the range of the penalty of Erwin will be Arresto Mayor to Prision
Correccional.
Page 6 of 6
Contributor: Atty Robert Michael N. Razon