1. Val, a Nigerian, set up a perfume business in the Philippines.

The investors
would buy the raw materials at a low price from Val. The raw materials consisted
of powders, which the investors would mix with water and let stand until a gel
was formed. Val made a written commitment to the investors that he would buy
back the gel at a higher price, thus assuring the investors of a neat profit. When
the amounts to be paid by Val to the investors reached millions of pesos, he sold
all the equipment of his perfume business, absconded with the money, and is
nowhere to be found. What crime or crimes were committed, if any? Explain.
(5%)

Answer:

Val committed the crime of estafa through false pretense.

Under the Revised Penal Code, estafa through false pretense is committed
when a person induces another to give away his property by way of false
representation committed immediately preceding or during the act of
giving away of such property.

In this case, Val induced his investors to buy his raw materials by falsely
promising them of sure profit by buying their products. Hence, Val is liable
for estafa through false pretense.

2. Christopher, John, Richard, and Luke are fraternity brothers. To protect

themselves from rival fraternities, they all carry guns wherever they go. One
night, after attending a party, they boarded a taxicab, held the driver at gunpoint
and took the latter’s earnings.
a. What crime, if any, did the four commit? Enumerate the elements of the
crime. (2%)
b. Would your answer be the same if they killed the driver? Explain. (2%)

Answer:
a) The crime committed is robbery by band.
Under the Revised Penal Code, the crime of robbery is committed when:
a. a person takes the personal property of another;
b. with intent to gain;
c. through force or intimidation.
In the case at bar, Christopher, John, Richard, and Luke, with intent to gain
held the driver at gun point by using intimidation and took the earnings of the
said driver.
 Hence, the crime committed is robbery by band.

b) No, the crime committed will be a special complex crime of robbery with
homicide.
According to the RPC, robbery with homicide is committed when during or
on the occasion of robbery, a person is killed either before, during, or after the
commission of the act.
Hence, if Christopher, John, Richard, and Luke, killed the driver as
afterthought, they are liable for robbery with homicide.

3. In her weekly gossip column in a tabloid, Gigi wrote an unflattering article about
Pablo, a famous singer, and his bitter separation from his wife. The article
portrayed Pablo as an abusive husband and caused him to lose lucrative
endorsement contracts. Pablo charged Gigi with libel. In her defense, Gigi
countered that she did not commit libel because Pablo has attained the status of
a public figure so that even his personal life has become a legitimate subject of
public interest and comment. Is Gigi correct? (7%)

Answer:

Gigi is incorrect.

Settled is the rule in libel cases that a person who has a reasonable
expectation of privacy, may file an action for libel against another, even though
the subject statements were correct, provided, there is malicious intent on the
part of the offender who published or uttered the statement.

In this case, Pablo being a famous singer, has a reasonable expectation of

privacy regarding his personal life. Furthermore, Gigi, showed malicious intent by
writing libelous statements despite knowing that it might affect Pablo’s
endorsement contracts.

Thus, Gigi is not correct.

4. Tiburcio asked Anastacio to join their group for a "session". Thinking that it was
for a mahjong session, Anastacio agreed. Upon reaching Tiburcio’s house,
Anastacio discovered that it was actually a shabu session. At that precise time,
the place was raided by the police, and Anastacio was among those arrested.
What crime can Anastacio be charged with, if any? Explain your answer.
Answer:

Anastacio is not liable of any crime because he had no knowledge of the

Shabu session.

The Court in one case held that absence of any prior knowledge of the
illegal drug transaction such as a shabu session does not make a person liable
thereto.

Here, Anastacio had no prior knowledge of the Shabu session as he

believes that he is going to a mahjong session. Absence of any fact indicating
Anastacio’s prior knowledge will not make him liable of the crime.

Hence, he is not liable for any crime.

5. An estranged married couple decided to separate. As part of their amicable

settlement, they agreed to ask their 14-year-old child to choose a parent with
whom to live. The child chose the mother. Displeased, the husband ceased
providing for the child's tuition and the wife's support. The husband was a vice
president of a highly profitable company. Did the husband commit any crime?
Explain briefly.

Answer:

Yes, the husband is liable under RA 9262 particularly economic and

psychological violence.

According to the RA 9262, a man who willfully and deliberately deprived financial
support to a woman to whom he had sexual, dating, or marital relationship, and
her child for the purpose of controlling the movement and/or action of such
woman and child is liable of economic and psychological violence.

In this case, the husband after knowing that his child did not choose to live with
him, deliberately deprived such child and his mother of financial support in order
to compel the child to live with him.

Hence, the husband is liable for economic and psychological violence.

6. Interviewed for a newspaper, a former beauty queen revealed that when she was
16 years old, she had her first sexual intercourse with her ex-boyfriend, who was
then 28 years old. In her narration, she said that she did not know what she was
doing and noted that her ex-boyfriend of a more advanced age misled her to
doing what he wanted. She added that, at certain points during the encounter,
she repeatedly said no but her ex-boyfriend was just too strong for her. The ex-
 boyfriend left her shortly thereafter. Was there a crime committed by the ex-
boyfriend? Explain briefly.

Answer:

The crime committed is Rape in relation to RA 7610.

Under the law, a person who had carnal knowledge with a minor woman through
abuse of authority is liable for rape in relation to RA 7610 in child abuse.

In the case at bar, it was stated that her ex-boyfriend who was then 28 years old
took advantage of her minor age and had sexual intercourse by abusing her trust.
Hence, her ex-boyfriend is liable for rape in relation to RA 7610.

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

(a) What are the respective durations of the penalties of reclusion perpetua
and prision mayor? (3%)
(b) How long will Mr. N serve all his penalties of imprisonment? Explain.
(2.5%)
(c) May Mr. N avail of the benefits of the IndeterminateSentence Law with
respect to his convictions for Murder and Grave Threats? Explain. (3%)
(d) Is Mr. N considered a habitual delinquent? Explain. (2.5%)

Answer:

a. under the Revised Penal Code, the penalty of reclusion perpetua is

imprisonment of 20 years and 1 day to 40 years. Whereas, prision mayor is 6
years and 1 day to 12 years.

b. Mr. N will serve 40 years of imprisonment.

Under the Revised Penal Code, in case of multiple penalty of imprisonment, the
convict will serve them successively, the penalty of imprisonment shall not
exceed thrice the penalty of the most serious crime and shall not in any case
exceed 40 years.

Here, the penalty of murder as the most serious crime is reclusion perpetua to
death which is 20 years and 1 day to 40 years. Hence, Mr. N, shall serve the
imprisonment of 40 years considering that three times of the penalty of reclusion
perpetua exceeds forty years under the three-fold-rule.

c. For his convictions for murder, Mr. N. cannot avail the benefits of Indeterminate
Sentence Law because it is a single indivisible penalty. However, for his
conviction for grave threats, he can avail the benefits of Indeterminate Sentence
Law because the penalty of grave threats is only Prision Mayor, a divisible
penalty.

d. No, Mr. N is not a habitual delinquent.

Under the law, a habitual delinquent is a person who within 10 years from is last
conviction of serious physical injury, theft, robbery, estafa, or falsification is
convicted for the third time or oftener.

Here, Mr, N. did not commit any of the crimes specified above. Hence, he cannot
be considered as habitual delinquent.

8. A crime defined in the Revised Penal Code is punishable by arresto menor.

Finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime, should the
judge apply the Indeterminate Sentence Law? Explain briefly.

Answer:
The judge should not apply the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

Indeterminate Sentence Law provides that it shall not be applicable to penalties

with an imprisonment of less than 1 year.

In this case, the penalty of arresto menor is only 1 month of imprisonment. Thus,
it is improper to apply the indeterminate sentence law.

9. Catalina, a Spanish national, and Conrado, a Filipino, set up a counterfeiting

factory in Shenzhen, China. Their factory produces fake United States (US)
Dollars, Japanese Yen, and Philippine Pesos, which are distributed only in
Europe and the US. While vacationing in Panglao, Bohol, they were arrested by
a special task force of the National Bureau of Investigation on the strength of a
warrant of arrest issued by a Philippine court for Counterfeiting and Forgery. Both
Catalina and Conrado claimed that the Philippine court does not have jurisdiction
over them since they did not commit any criminal act within the territory of the
Philippines. Catalina also argued that the Philippine court does not have
jurisdiction over her person as she is a Spanish citizen. Are Catalina and
Conrado correct? Discuss.

Answer:
Catalina and Conrado’s contentions are not correct.

As an exception to the territoriality principle, the Philippines has jurisdiction over

cases of counterfeiting involving Philippine currency regardless of where the
counterfeiting is committed or nationality of the offenders.

In the case at bar, Catalina and Conrado was counterfeiting Philippine Pesos
which was used and distributed in the US and Europe. Hence, the Philippine court
has jurisdiction over them.

Therefore, Catalina and Conrado’s contentions are not correct.

10. Macho married Ganda, a transgender. Macho was not then aware that Ganda
was a transgender. On their first night, after their marriage, Macho discovered
that Ganda was a transgender. Macho confronted Ganda and a heated argument
ensued. In the course of the heated argument, a fight took place wherein Ganda
got hold of a knife to stab Macho. Macho ran away from the stabbing thrusts and
got his gun which he pointed at Ganda just to frighten and stop Ganda from
continuing with the attack. Macho had no intention at all to kill Ganda. Unfamiliar
with guns, Macho accidentally pulled the trigger and hit Ganda that caused the
latter’s death. What was the crime committed? (4%)

Answer:

The crime committed is homicide.

Under the RPC, preater intentionem as a mode of committing a felony, a person

may be held liable for a crime even though such crime is not what he intended.

Here, Macho had no intention to kill ganda, however, due to his lack of knowledge
in handling a gun, he accidentally killed Ganda. Hence, he is liable for homicide.