Suggested Answers To The 2024 Criminal Law Mock Bar Examination

JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTERTM
2024 JURISTS PRE-BAR REVIEW PROGRAM
SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO THE 2024

CRIMINAL LAW MOCK BAR EXAMINATION
Brando told Jimmy, Peter, and Joseph that he would give them ₱500,000.00 if they
will kill Warren. In view of the offer, Jimmy, Peter, and Joseph met with Brando to thresh
out the details of the killing. The following day, the four accused went to Warren’s place,
each carrying a baseball bat. Brando stayed in his car to keep watch while his co-accused
went upstairs to the house. Fifteen minutes after, the three accused went down with
bloodstained bats. Brando brought them away from the place. When they reached the
next town, he gave them ₱500,000.00 as he had promised. They were all arrested and
charged of murder aggravated by a band. Is band attendant to the commission of the
crime?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, band is not attendant to the commission of the crime.
Under the Criminal Law, in order for band to be attendant in the commission of a
crime, the four armed persons must all be principals by direct participation.
Here, although there were four men armed with baseball bats, Brando was not a
principal by direct participation but by inducement since he remained in the car during the
actual killing.
Hence, band is not attendant in the commission of the crime.
In the heat of anger, Rodrigo pointed a gun at Reyno. With intention to kill the latter,
Rodrigo pressed the trigger, but no bullet came out of the gun. When he checked it, he
found that the trigger had jammed. (a) For what crime is Rodrigo liable? (b) Assuming
that the reason why no bullet came out was that there was no more bullet left inside the
gun, would Rodrigo still be criminally liable? Explain fully.
SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
(a)
Rodrigo is liable for the crime of attempted homicide.
Under the Revised Penal Code, there is an attempted felony when the offender
commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts but does not perform all the
acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause other than
his own spontaneous desistance.
Here, Rodrigo commenced the commission of the felony by the overt act of aiming
the gun at Reyno and pressing the trigger, but because the trigger jammed, a cause other
than Rodrigo’s own spontaneous desistance, he was not able to perform all the acts which
should produce the felony of homicide. The felony is only homicide, not murder, since
although Rodrigo had the intention to kill Reyno, his act was done in the heat of anger
and without evident premeditation and treachery.
Hence, Rodrigo is liable for attempted homicide.
(b)
2024 Suggested Answers to Criminal Law Mock Bar Examination. © 2024 by Jurists Review Center Inc.
Copying, dissemination, storage, use, modification, uploading, and downloading without the express written
consent of Jurists Review Center Inc. is strictly prohibited and shall be subjected to criminal prosecution
and administrative charges, including the appropriate complaint with the Bar Confidant’s Office and IBP.
Page 1 of 10
Assuming that the reason why no bullet came out was that there was no more
bullet left inside the gun, Rodrigo would still be criminally liable.
Under the Revised Penal Code, a person is criminally liable for an impossible crime
if he performed an act which would be an offense against persons were it not for the
inherent impossibility of its accomplishment.
Here, Rodrigo performed the act of pulling the trigger of the gun aimed at Reyno
which would have been homicide, an offense against persons, were it not for the inherent
impossibility of its accomplishment since the gun did not have any bullet.
Hence, Rodrigo would still be criminally liable.
Tonton and Damian broke a window in the house owned by Teban. Thereafter, they
entered and proceeded to the kitchen. Unfortunately for them, Bruno, Teban’s bulldog
was left tied to the kitchen table that evening. Bruno alerted Teban who woke up and
made loud noises to scare of the intruders. Tonton and Damian hurriedly left through the
open kitchen door. They had gone only two kilometers away from the house when the
tanods caught up with them. What crime did Tonton and Damian commit?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Tonton and Damian committed the crime of attempted robbery.
Under the Revised Penal Code, there is an attempt when the offender commences
the commission of a felony directly by overt acts but does not perform all the acts of
execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other
than his own spontaneous desistance.
Here, Tonton and Damian commenced the commission of the crime of robbery by
breaking the window of the house and entering the house but were not able to perform
all acts of execution of robbery because the owner of the house was alerted of their entry,
a cause other than their own spontaneous desistance.
Hence, Tonton and Damian were guilty of attempted robbery. [U.S. v. Gonzales, 4
Phil. 414]
AA has been suspecting his wife of having an illicit affair with VV. While walking at
a dark alley one evening, AA met VV by chance and thereafter confronted the latter.
During the heated argument which ensued, VV noticed AA drawing a gun from his
waistband, thus, prompting him to retreat and run. AA pursued VV, and when cornered
at a dead end, VV faced AA. With both hands raised, VV pleaded with AA to desist. In
that position, AA immediately shot VV twice in the head. VV died as a result.
Charged with and tried for murder qualified by treachery, may AA be convicted
thereof? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, AA may not be convicted of murder qualified by treachery.
Under the Criminal Law, in order for for treachery to qualify the killing of a person
to murder, the mode of attack must be deliberately and consciously adopted.
Here, the shooting was done immediately after a heated argument between AA
and VV. Thus, the mode of attack, that is the use of a gun, was not deliberately and
Page 2 of 10
consciously adopted by AA but was the spontaneous result of rage and passion, even
though the attack rendered VV defenseless.
Hence, AA cannot be convicted of murder qualified by treachery.
Petito was found guilty of homicide and sentenced to imprisonment of 12 years, 1

month and 1 day to 20 years and to pay the heirs of the victim ₱32,000 for funeral
expenses and ₱30,000 as death indemnity. The judgment became final and executory in
1989. In 2010, after two decades from the entry of judgment, Probo, the son of the
deceased victim, filed a Motion for Execution of Judgment insofar as the penalty of
imprisonment and insofar as the civil liability is concerned. He alleged, among others, that
despite his request to the City Prosecutor to file a motion for execution, the judgment has
not been enforced because said prosecutor has not acted upon his request. Petito
opposed the motion contending that the judgment can no longer be enforced pursuant to
Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. Should the RTC grant the motion for execution?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The RTC should grant the motion for execution of the judgment insofar as the
penalty is concerned but should not grant it insofar as the civil liability of the accused is
concerned.
With respect to the penalty of imprisonment, the motion for execution of judgment
should be granted.
In a case involving similar facts, the Supreme Court held that the applicable
provision insofar as the execution of the penalty of imprisonment is not Section 6 of Rule
39 but Article 93 of the Revised Penal Code and thus the period of prescription of the
penalty did not start to run since the accused did not evade the service of his sentence
by escaping from imprisonment.
Hence, since the penalty had not prescribed, the same may be enforced.
With respect to the civil liability, the motion for execution of judgment should not
be granted.
In a case involving similar facts, the Supreme Court held that the civil liability may
no longer be enforced since the judgment has not been enforced within ten years
pursuant to Section 6 of Rule 39 and has thus prescribed.
Hence, the motion for execution of the judgment with respect to the civil liability
should not be granted. [Basilonia v. Villaruz, 10 August 2015, Peralta, J.]
On 5 February 2024, the City Prosecutor of Quezon City filed with the MeTC an
information charging Bull Lee with slight physical injuries committed against Ner Dee on
6 December 2023. Bull Lee filed a counter-affidavit in which he raised the defense of
prescription, arguing that the last day of the 60-day prescriptive period for a light offense,
such as slight physical injuries, was on 4 February 2024 and thus the crime had
prescribed. The prosecutor replied that since 4 February 2024 was a Sunday, the
information could be filed on the next working day pursuant to the rule on pretermission
of holiday. How should the court rule on the defense of prescription?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The court should grant the affirmative defense of prescription.
Page 3 of 10
The Supreme Court has held that the rule on pretermission of holiday does not
apply to prescription of offenses since prescription sets in automatically and by operation
of law.
Here, the information was filed in court on the 61st day from the commission of the
offense which is beyond the 60-day prescriptive period for light offenses such as slight
physical injuries. The fact that the 60th day fell on a Sunday is immaterial since
prescription had already set in automatically by operation of law.
Hence, the court should grant the defense of prescription. [Yapdiangco v.

Buencamino, 24 June 1983]
Tina lent her gold ring to Trish for the latter to use during a party. Trish however
pawned the gold ring to the J.C. David Pawnshop without the knowledge of Tina. Since
Trish did not pay her debt to the pawnshop, the latter sold the gold ring at a public auction
and the ring was bought by Nilda, who was unaware of the act of Trish.
a) What crime if any was committed by Trish?
b) May Tina still recover the ring from Nilda?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a)
The crime committed by Trish is estafa through misappropriation.
Under the Revised Penal Code, estafa through misappropriation is committed

when the offender misappropriates personal property received under a duty to return the
same. [Art. 315(1)(b)]
Here, Trish had a duty to return the ring which she borrowed from Tina and she
misappropriated it when she pawned the same.
Hence, Trish is liable for estafa through misappropriation.
(b)
Yes, Tina may still recover the ring from Nilda provided Tina reimburses Nilda the
price she paid for the ring.
Under the Criminal Law, the owner may recover a movable of which he has been
unlawfully deprived of from one who purchased it in good faith at a public sale, provided
the owner reimburses the buyer the purchase price. [Art. 103, Revised Penal Code; Art.
559, Civil Code]
Here, Tina was unlawfully deprived through estafa of a movable, that is the ring.
The ring was acquired at a public sale or auction by Nilda who was in good faith as she
was not aware of Trish’s act.
Hence, Tina may still recover the ring from Nilda, provided Tina reimburses Nilda
the price she paid at the public auction.
Ivana Korchnoi, a married woman and Boris Karpov, a married man, were charged
with adultery in an information filed by the Prosecutor of Bataan upon a sworn complaint
filed by Mrs. Tatiana Karpov, wife of Boris. After trial, Ivana and Boris were convicted and
sentenced to imprisonment. No timely appeal was made by Ivana and Boris. The sister
Page 4 of 10
of Ivana comes to you and asks whether there is still a remedy available to Ivana and
Boris. What would your opinion be?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
My opinion would be that habeas corpus is a remedy which is still available to

Ivana and Boris.
The Supreme Court has held that habeas corpus is available as a post-conviction
remedy to set aside a judgment where the court had no jurisdiction to impose the
sentence. Under the Criminal Law, the offended party’s complaint in adultery is
jurisdictional in that the court will not acquire jurisdiction to try the case without such
complaint.
Here, the complaint was filed by Mrs. Karpov who is not the offended party; it is
the husband of Ivana Korchnoi who is the offended party. Thus, the court did not acquire
jurisdiction to try the case and impose the sentence.
Hence, habeas corpus is available as a remedy to set aside the judgment of

conviction against Ivana and Boris.
Juana, who is the mother-in-law of Patty, unknowingly left her handbag, containing
among other things, her ATM card, when she visited Patty at her house. After having
discovered the same, Patty took said card and with it, was able to withdraw, through an
ATM, ₱50,000.00 from Juana’s account with the issuing bank. Is Patty criminally and
civilly liable therefor?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Patty is not criminally liable, but she is civilly liable.
Under the Revised Penal Code, it is provided that no criminal, but only civil liability,
shall result from the commission of theft committed or caused mutually by ascendants or
relatives by affinity in the same line. [Art. 332, RPC]
Here, Patty committed the crime of theft against her mother-in-law, Juana, her
relative by affinity in the same line as an ascendant.
Hence, Patty is exempt from criminal liability therefor, she is however civilly liable
to Juana for the ₱50,000 she had stolen from Juana.
10
Robert lent ₱12 million to Naty, repayable with interest, in consideration of which
Naty, simultaneous with the receipt of the money, issued to Robert six personal postdated
checks. When the checks fell due, Naty told Robert not to deposit them because they
were not funded and promised to replace them. Naty got back the six original checks by
replacing them with four postdated checks (the replacement checks) which she handed
to Robert. Later, the four replacement checks were dishonored upon presentment for
payment by Robert for having been drawn against insufficient funds or against closed
accounts. Naty did not pay despite receiving notice of dishonor of the checks from Robert.
Naty was charged with the crime of estafa under Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal
Code for the issuance of the four replacement checks. May Naty be convicted of such
crime?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Page 5 of 10
No, Naty may not be convicted of the crime of estafa under Article 315(2)(d) of the
Revised Penal Code.
Under the Revised Penal Code, to be liable for estafa through the issuance of
bouncing checks under Article 315(2)(d), the dishonored checks should be the means
employed by the accused to induce the offended party to part with the money or property
of valuable consideration.
Here, the dishonored replacement checks were not the means used by the
accused Naty to induce the private complainant Robert to part with or lend Naty the
money. It was the six postdated checks which induced Robert to lend the money; these
checks, however, were never presented for payment and dishonored.
Hence, Naty may not be convicted of estafa through the issuance of bouncing
checks. [People v. Chua, 315 SCRA 326 (1999)]
11
Yong Chan Kim was employed as a researcher at the South-East Asian Fisheries
Development Center (SEAFDEC). In such capacity, he received cash advances to defray
his travel expenses. Under the SEAFDEC rules, such cash advances must be liquidated
by an employee Yong failed to return an unliquidated ₱50,000 cash advance despite
demand by SEAFDEC. Yong was charged and convicted by the trial court of estafa
through misappropriation. Was Yong’s conviction proper?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Yong’s conviction for estafa through misappropriation was not proper.
Under the Criminal Law, a person cannot be held liable for misappropriating
something which he owns.
Here, the ownership of the money was transferred to Yong since he received it by
way of loan. The cash advanced to Yong is a loan which he is obligated to liquidate and
repay but such obligation is only civil and not criminal.
Hence, Yong’s conviction for estafa through misappropriation was not proper.
[Yong Chan Kim v. People, 25 January 1991]
12
Pokwang and Ganda are friends residing in Pasay City. Pokwang lent ₱3,000,000
to Ganda evidenced by a promissory note. Ganda failed to pay the note despite demand
so Pokwang filed an action for collection of ₱3,000,000 against Ganda. In her verified
answer, Ganda claimed that she never borrowed money from Pokwang which was a clear
lie. Is Ganda liable for perjury?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Ganda is not liable for perjury.
Under the Criminal Law, there is no perjury if the statement is not required by law
to be verified or under oath.
Here, Ganda’s answer was filed under the regular procedure. Thus, the answer
is not required by law to be verified or under oath.
Hence, Ganda is not liable for perjury.
13
Page 6 of 10
WW, widower and a licensed pharmacist, owned and operated a drugstore. When
WW fell ill, his son, YY, an accountant, supervised the day-to-day operations of the store
until WW’s demise. In his Last Will and Testament, WW bequeathed to YY all his
properties, except the stocks-in-trade of the drugstore, with which YY was instructed
therein to donate them to the victims of a super typhoon. While driving his car on his way
to a television station where the donation would be coursed through, YY was flagged
down by uniformed policemen manning a checkpoint. With his consent, the motor vehicle
was searched. From the stock of medicines he intended to give gratuitously, 50 ampules
of Morphine, were found. When required to present any document issued by the
Dangerous Drugs Board authorizing him to possess said substance, YY was not able to
do so.
Tried for “possession of dangerous drugs”, in violation of Section 11 of the

Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act (R.A. No. 9165), YY presented his father’s Will to
prove absence of criminal intent on his part because his intention in transporting and
donating the same for a cause is noble, worthy of praise, commendation, and emulation,
and not of criminal prosecution.
Is YY’s defense of absence of criminal intent tenable?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, YY’s defense of absence of criminal intent is untenable.
The Supreme Court has held that lack of criminal intent is not a tenable defense in
an offense which is malum prohibitum.
Here, the offense involved is possession of a dangerous drug, which is a malum

prohibitum.
Hence, YY’s defense of absence of criminal intent is untenable.
14
Tony Stark proposed to Steve Rogers that they engage in “snatching”. Later,
however, Tony Stark undertook the snatching alone by boarding a jeepney in Recto. Tony
Stark saw Peter Parker, a passenger in the said jeepney, wearing a gold necklace.
Minutes later, Tony Stark snatched the necklace of Peter Parker, disembarked from the
jeepney, and ran away.
The following day, Steve Rogers, discovered the incident. Enraged, he confronted
Tony Stark. Tony Stark explained that he urgently needed the money because his
daughter is in the hospital. To appease Steve Rogers, Tony Stark asked him to sell the
necklace. Steve Rogers then sold it to his “suki” pawnshop which has been his go-to place
whenever he and Tony Stark would commit snatching.
What are the criminal liabilities of Tony Stark, Steve Rogers, and the pawnshop?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Tony Stark is liable as principal for the crime of Theft.
Under the Revised Penal Code, the following are the elements of Theft: (1) that
there be taking of personal property; (2) that said property belongs to another; (3) that the
taking be done with intent to gain; (4) that the taking be done without the consent of the
owner; and (5) that the taking be accomplished without the use of violence against or
intimidation of persons or force upon things.
Page 7 of 10
Here, Tony Stark took the gold necklace which belongs to Peter Parker, without
the consent of the latter and with intent to gain. Finally, Tony Stark did the taking without
the without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons as he merely snatched
it from Peter Parker.
Hence, Tony Stark is liable for Theft.
On the other hand, Steve Rogers and the pawnshop are liable as principals in the
crime of Fencing.
Under the Anti-Fencing Law, Fencing is act of any person who, with intent to gain
for himself or for another, shall sell or buy any object, which he knows, or should be known
to him, to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of theft.
Here, Steve Rogers sold, and the pawnshop bought the necklace, with intent to
gain, knowing fully that the same has been derived from the crime of theft committed by
Tony Stark.
Hence, Steve Rogers and the pawnshop are liable as principals in the crime of
Fencing.
15
Seve, a Malabon City councilor, entrusted the preparation of his Personal Data
Sheet (PDS), an official or public document, to his secretary. In answer to the question of
whether there was a pending criminal case against him, the secretary checked the box
corresponding to the “no” answer despite the pendency of a criminal case against Seve
for assault upon an agent of a person in authority before the Metropolitan Trial Court of
Malabon City. Seve signed the PDS without verifying the entries thereon. What was the
crime committed by Seve, if any?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The crime committed by Seve is reckless imprudence resulting to falsification of

public document.
In a case involving similar facts, the Supreme Court held that the accused could
not be convicted of falsification of public document because he did not act with malicious
intent to falsify the entry since the PDS was actually prepared by his staff, and he signed
without verifying the entries therein; nonetheless, the accused could be convicted of
reckless imprudence resulting to falsification of public document considering that it was
his reckless imprudence in signing the PDS without checking it which resulted in the false
entry therein. [Sevilla v. People, 13 August 2014]
16
On 30 May 2012, Eloy Mas wrote a public post in his Facebook account that
Barangay Captain Boo Waya was a corrupt “barangay kupitan” who repeatedly
misappropriated barangay funds for his personal use. Mas deleted the post three months
later. Nonetheless, Waya filed on 29 October 2012 a complaint for online libel with the
prosecutor. The prosecutor dismissed the complaint stating that there was no crime of
online libel prior to 12 October 2012, the effectivity date of the Cybercrime Prevention Act.
Was the dismissal by the prosecutor correct?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the dismissal by the prosecutor on the ground that there was no crime of online
libel prior to 12 October 2012 was not correct.
Page 8 of 10
The Supreme Court has held that cyberlibel or online libel is not a new crime, but
essentially the old crime of libel found in the Revised Penal Code and transposed to
operate in cyberspace. [Disini v. Secretary of Justice, 723 SCRA 109, 127 (res.) (2014)]
17
Gerald, married to Bea, contracted another marriage with Julia in Singapore. While
Gerald and Julia stayed in Singapore for their honeymoon, Bea discovered the
clandestine marriage between the two. Devastated and aggrieved, Bea filed a criminal
complaint against Gerald for violation R.A. No. 9262, particularly for psychological
violence. Gerald filed a motion to quash arguing that Philippine courts have no jurisdiction
over the case. Decide.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The motion to quash on the ground of lack of jurisdiction should be denied.
The Supreme Court has held that Philippine courts have jurisdiction over violations
of R.A. No. 9262 involving psychological violence if an element of the offense occurs in
the Philippines.
Here, the mental and emotional suffering of Bea caused by the psychological
violence, an element of the offense, happened in the Philippines. As such, Philippine
courts have jurisdiction over the case, notwithstanding the fact that the marital infidelity
of Gerald happened in Singapore.
Hence, the motion to quash on the ground of lack of jurisdiction should be denied.
[AAA v. BBB, 11 January 2018, Tijam, J.]
18
May an accused interpose good faith as a defense in the crime of Failure to Render
Account under Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, an accused may not interpose good faith as a defense in the crime of failure
to render account under Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code.
The Supreme Court has held that the crime of failure to render account is a malum
prohibitum in which good faith on the part of the offender is not a defense. [See Dungo v.
People, G.R. No. 209464, July 1, 2015, 761 SCRA 375; Garcia v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 157171, March 14, 2006, 484 SCRA 617]
19
Draft an information for violation of B.P. Blg. 22. The amount of the check involved
is ₱3 million and the venue of the criminal case is in Manila. The accused’s name is John
Doe and that of the payee is Juan Dela Cruz.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH ____, MANILA
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,
Page 9 of 10
-versus- CRIMINAL CASE NO. _______

For: Violation of B.P. Blg. 22
JOHN DOE,
Accused,
x-------------------------------------------x
INFORMATION
The undersigned prosecutor accuses JOHN DOE of the violation of Batas

Pambansa Blg. 22, committed as follows:
That on 1 April 2024, the said accused willfully and feloniously drew and issued in
the City of Manila to Juan Dela Cruz for value Bank of the Philippine Islands Check No.
123456 dated 1 April 2024 in the amount of THREE MILLION PESOS (₱3,000,000.00)
payable to the order of Juan Dela Cruz, said accused knowing at the time of issue that
he did not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment in full
of such check upon its presentment, which check when presented for payment on 4 April
2024 or within 90 days from the date thereof was dishonored by the drawee bank for
insufficiency of funds or credit, and despite receipt of notice of such dishonor on 7 April
2024, said accused failed to pay the payee Juan Dela Cruz the amount of said check or
to make arrangements for full payment of the same within five banking days after receipt
of such notice.
Contrary to law.
(Signature of Investigating Prosecutor)

(Designation)
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a preliminary examination in this case has been

conducted by me in accordance with law; that I have found probable cause to hold the
accused for trial; and that the filing of this information is with the prior authority and
approval of the City Prosecutor.
Manila, 22 May 2024.
(Signature of Investigating Prosecutor)
(Jurat and signature of officer administering oath)
-oOo-
Page 10 of 10

Suggested Answers To The 2024 Criminal Law Mock Bar Examination

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Suggested Answers To The 2024 Criminal Law Mock Bar Examination

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Suggested Answers To The 2024 Criminal Law Mock Bar Examination

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTERTM

2024 JURISTS PRE-BAR REVIEW PROGRAM

SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO THE 2024

No, band is not attendant to the commission of the crime.

Hence, band is not attendant in the commission of the crime.

Rodrigo is liable for the crime of attempted homicide.

Hence, Rodrigo is liable for attempted homicide.

Hence, Rodrigo would still be criminally liable.

Tonton and Damian committed the crime of attempted robbery.

No, AA may not be convicted of murder qualified by treachery.

Hence, AA cannot be convicted of murder qualified by treachery.

Petito was found guilty of homicide and sentenced to imprisonment of 12 years, 1

The court should grant the affirmative defense of prescription.

Hence, the court should grant the defense of prescription. [Yapdiangco v.

The crime committed by Trish is estafa through misappropriation.

Under the Revised Penal Code, estafa through misappropriation is committed

Hence, Trish is liable for estafa through misappropriation.

My opinion would be that habeas corpus is a remedy which is still available to

Hence, habeas corpus is available as a remedy to set aside the judgment of

Patty is not criminally liable, but she is civilly liable.

No, Ganda is not liable for perjury.

Hence, Ganda is not liable for perjury.

Tried for “possession of dangerous drugs”, in violation of Section 11 of the

Is YY’s defense of absence of criminal intent tenable?

No, YY’s defense of absence of criminal intent is untenable.

Here, the offense involved is possession of a dangerous drug, which is a malum

Hence, YY’s defense of absence of criminal intent is untenable.

Tony Stark is liable as principal for the crime of Theft.

Hence, Tony Stark is liable for Theft.

The crime committed by Seve is reckless imprudence resulting to falsification of

The motion to quash on the ground of lack of jurisdiction should be denied.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

-versus- CRIMINAL CASE NO. _______

The undersigned prosecutor accuses JOHN DOE of the violation of Batas

(Signature of Investigating Prosecutor)

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a preliminary examination in this case has been

Manila, 22 May 2024.

(Signature of Investigating Prosecutor)

(Jurat and signature of officer administering oath)

You might also like