1962 Bar Examination questions (Continuation) Criminal Law

Media

Part of The Lawyers Journal

Title: 1962 Bar Examination questions (Continuation) Criminal Law
Language: English
Year: 1962
Subject: Criminal law -- Philippines -- Examinations, questions, etc.; Bar examinations -- Philippines
Rights
Fulltext: tions or l1\embers of Congress? What is its composition? (b) What is the limitation, if any, on the power of Congress to punish private individuals for contempt? Explain briefly you1· answer. (c) One A assaulted Representative B on January 30, 1960. The House of Representatives of which Representative B was a member adopted a resolution on February 10, 1960, requiring the Speaker to ord1:r the arrest of A to be confined in Muntinglupa Prison for twenty-four hours. The House adjourned that 10ession on the 19th of May, 196-0, without the order of arrest having be('n sened on A. A confirmatory resolution was approved by the House on J anuary 31: 1961, <lui·ing the regular session of the Legislature. Shor1ly thereafter, a new wanant of arrest was issued by the Speaker of the House of Repri!Sentatives, and A was taken into custody by a Constabulary officer. A petitioned for a writ of Habea:.; Corp1u;. Deci.de giving reasons. IX. (a) The Constitution provides that the Congress may authorize upon payment of just compensation, the "expropl'iation of lands to be sub-divided mto small lots and conveyed at cost to individuals". ls this not a violation of one of the constitutional limitations on the exercise of the power of eminent domain, namely, that private property taken shall be for public use? Reasons. . (b) In ihe exercise of the !)OW!!!' of eminent domain, may the state appropriate contrncts in spite of the provison of the Constitution that "no luw impairing the obligation of contracts shall be enacted"? Reasons. (c) For the extension of the Dewey Boulevard it was neccs· sary to take over 1/ 5 of the land belonging to B. Before the extension thereof, the market value vf the entir(' land was Pl000.00. As a result of the improvem~nt, the remaining 4/ 5 has now a market value of 1110,000.00. Jn view hereof the government contends that there 1s no more obligation to pay for the land appropriated. Decide giving reasons. X. (a) Differentiate between the power exercised by the President over the executive departments and the bureaus or offices of the National Government from that exercised by him over the local governments. In your opinion, which is more effective - that exercised by him over the departments and bureaus or offices of the National Government or that over the local governments? Why? (b) The Municipal Council of Villasis enters into a contract with Juan Sison whereby the latter is g ranted the lease of a fishpond for a period of two years in consideration of the sum of five thousand pesos. After one year, the Municipal Council rescinds the contract without any sufficient justification and awards the fishpond to Pedro Santos for a similar period and for the same amount. Sison now hires you to handle the case for him. As counsel, do you think he has a cause of action for damages? If so, against whom and why? Reasons. CRIMINAL LAW I. (a) What are the PENAL CODES enacted for operation in the Philippines? Give the respective YEARS in which they were made effective. (b) Before or after the promulgation of Act 3815 (Revised Penal Code), were any project or projects ever prepared and submitted to Congress or governmental authorities amending the SYSTEM of penology of the Philippines? If so, enumerate them chronologically, giving the names of their respective authors. IL "A", a Consul of the Philippines stationed in X-place, in the exercise of his official functions as such, while in his place of assignment and for the consideration cf P10,000 prepared va1·ious documents in favor of "B" wherein he knowingly made untruthful statements in the nanation of facts and in connection therewith he issued "B" the COITesponding VISA authol'izing "B'' to enter Philippine soi! to which "B.' was not entitled : (a) Has "A" committed any crime defined and punished in the Revised Penal Code? If so, lmme it; If not, explain your answer. (b) Can "A" be prosecuted in the Philippines fo1· said crime? Why? l!I. (a) Explain the aggravating circumstance that the crime was committed by a band. (b) W.hat shall be the nature or extent of the disguise necessary to consider its attendance as an aggmvating ('i1·· cumstance? (c) Article 14, paragraph 6, of the Revised Penal Code men~ tions 3 aggravating circumstances, i.(·., night time. ~n inhabited place and that the crime be committed bv a band. Are ALL these 3 circumstances when atten<iing the commission of a crime to be considered as only one or as 3 different and separate from one anothc!'? Why? IV. (a) Can the crime of rebellion be com11lexed with other common crimes? Why? (b) In ~960, Juliet committed 6 ('l'imes of es~afa to the damage of the respective offended patties in the sum of Pl,000 in each case. She was in the same year proseeuted for all the G cases: 2 in the Couit of First In stance of l\tanila, 2 in Quezon City, 1 in Pasar City and the last one in Caloocan City. She was convicted afte1· hearing in all the 6 cases. I n the imposition of th(' corresponding penalties: (a) would she be entilled to the benefits of lhe thl'eefold-lcngth-of-timc rule provided in Rule 70, last paragraph, of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Comnlt)nwealth Act No. 217, Section 2? Jn the affii·mative case, how could that rule be applied to her? V. One morning, Hilarion went to the house of Dionisio. and nnd there had an altercation with him over ce1·t:1in deliveries of tobacco leaves which the latter did not want to yield. E11raged, Hilarion left saying that he was to come back at noon, which he did, armed with a paltik and a bolo, and at a distance of 30 feet from the house, called Dionisio to 'come down'. As the latter l'efused, Hilarion to compet Dionisio to come down, set fire to Dionisio's hou~e- Naturally, Dionisio fled before the house was cl('stroyed. Is Hilarion liable for the crime of arson provided in Art. 221, No. 1, of the Revised Penal Code for having set fil'c to a dwelling house knowing it to he occupied by c'lle or more persons at the time of the fire? Explain yout· answ'.!r. VI. A, B, C, D, E and F conspired to commit the crime of r r11'be1·y with homicide in the house of the ~pouses Y and 'l.. residing in San J uan,· Rizal. F, a ~ervant o( said spousez became nfraid upon learning that the conspirators inte!1Ced also to kill his master and informed them of lhe proposed crime. Said spouses sought then the protection of the NBI and the Constabulary, so that when on August 1, 1962, the malefactors went to the house of said spouses to con~ summate their intended felony and were in the act of oarrying the spouses' automobile away from the garage, they were halted by the government forces whereupon a gun hattlc ensued with the 1·esult that F, the spouse-;;' servant. and C, one of the malefactors, we1·~ killed. Did the surviving malefac«irs commit the composite or SJl('Cial crim0 of robbery with homicide notwithstanding the foct thal one of the pC!rsons killed had participated in the conspiracy and the other was one of t.hc malefacto1·s killed by the government forces ? Explain your Page 284 LAWYERS JOURNAL September 30, 1962 VII. (a} What do you know about the so-called impossible crimt's? Do the pe1 ·petrators thereof incur uny criminal li:ibility under the pl'ovisions of the Revised Penal Cor!e? Why? (b) I n the affirmati\·e case, give an cxnmple of a fclC111ious act punished by the Penal Code that turns out to be an impossible crime. In the negative case, explain briefly why the perpetrator vf a so-called impossible crime does not incur any criminal liability. \'III. Jn January, 1959, Romeo was prosecuted and convicted in the Court of First Instance of Manila of 3 crimes of th~ft fol' which he was sentenced by reason of the value of the properties stolen to the following penalties of prision correccioual: l'G,200 fine to 3 years, G months and 20 days; l'l,000 and P500 fine to 1 year, 8 months and 21 days in each case. Romeo immediately commenced to serve these )lenahies in i\luntinglupa. Jn 1960, while serving s~ntenec, he escaped therefrom and went to Lingaye11, Pangasin:rn, where he also committed IO crimes of ('Stafa, each in the sum of J>I,0-00, for all whi~h crimes, he again was prosecuted and convicted after hearing in May, 1961. Under these eircumstanC'es, can the penalties imposed 1o Rome-o, for the crimes committed before his escape from l\tuntinglupa, affect the imposition and service cf the penalties for which hC' was sentenced for the second group of crimes undf'r the threefold-length-of-time rule prescribed in Article 70, last para~raph, of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Commonwealth Act 217, section 2? · I X. X-newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines, published in its issue of August I , 1962, a libelous a1·ticle accusing A, B and C of having acted in confederation to smuggle as they did smuggle into the Philippines, several items of merchandise worth PI,000,000. A resides in Manila; B in Quezon City : and C in Polo, Bulacan. Under these facts, may the criminal liability of the author of that libel be divided into 3 distinct and separate offenses so that said author might be prosecuted and convicted of 3 crimes O r libel? Expla~n your answer. :X. (a) A, B, C and D, without any right whatsoever squatted on a piece of land in the Cit y of Manila, the property of z. Inasmuch as ejectment prnceedings would take quite a very long time to produce results, if evt>r successful, can the Viscal of Manila, upon complaint of Z, charge A, B, C and D with the crime of coercion or unjust vexation which, though light felcnies, covered by Article 287, last paragraph, of the Revised Penal Code, would, upon conviction of the culprits, bring about their immediate ejection from the premises? Express your opinion giving your reasons therefor. (b) Hogelio was prosecuted for murder. After hearing, he was found guilty of the crime charged attended by the mitigating Circumstance of the offender having voluntarily surrendered himself to a person in authority or his agents. He was, t herefore, sentenced, among oth('rs, to the principal penalty provided for murder in its minimum· degree, that is, to 17 years, 4 months and 1 day of rechtsio1t temporal. May the provisions of Acts 4103 and 4225, known as the indeterminate sentence law be applied in this case? Explain your anREMEDIAL LAW TO T HE EXAM IN EE: Whl'l'e you are given a problem, first give your answer and then your reasoning. I. A11tonio was run over by a jeepney driven by Cirilo but owned by Baldomero and he suffered serious physical in· juries as a result; in due t ime, A11tonio filed a civil action fo1· damages against Bu.ldotlb'11'o in the Justice of the Peace Court and immediately secured a writ of attachment upon Bal<lomero'B properties which was levied upon a parcel of unregistered land owned by Baldomero; trial was held and Antonio won in the Justice of the Peace but Baldomero appea led. (a) If pending t rial in the Cou1-t of Flrst Instance, A nto11io died whe1 ·eupon, Baldomero moved to dismiss but Antonio~s heirs oppose the motion, how wonld you rule on the motion? (b) If pending trial in the Court of First Instance, it was flaldcmiuo who died ana his heirs therefore move to dismiss but A ntonio opposes the motion, how would you mle on said motion? I I. Dionisio filed an action against Eriberto but when the Sheriff came to Eriberto's house, to serve summons, it happened that E riberto was away having gone to Mindauao on business and the Sheriff only 1·eached Eriberto's wife who received the summons for him; now Eriberto did not return any more because he died in Mindanao, 1 day before service of summons upon his wife here in Luzon but news of his death came to his wife much later and Dionisio was able to secure a default jmigment i11 the action and after that a writ of execution, but when this was about to be levied upon Eribe;-to's properties, his wife liaving a lready learned of Eriberto's death, consulted an attorney who filed a motion to annul the execution and the default judgment, but beca:ise one year had already passed since the entry of the judgment when the wife came to know of E riberto's cleath so that the motion was filed more than one yea1· after the entry of said judgment , therefore, Dionisio opposed t he motion alleging it was too la te, because according to him, lack of jurisdiction over the person of Eriberto should have been availed of under Ru!~ 8 and the period fot' this had already passed; in any case, the pcriod prescribed in Rule 38 on relief from judgment had also already passed. How do you decide? I ll. Felix leased l1is house to G:·eg0rio ; Gregorio failed to pay the 1·entals due; Felix sent him a letter of demand and a threat to sue him on unlawful detainer should he not make 1>ayment within IO days from notice; Gi·egorio received the letter but did not pay nor vacate; instead, Gregorio filed an action against Felix in the Court of F irst InstanCC' for specific performance, alleging that t he rental agreed lJpon was much lower than that demanded and that he, Gregorio, wa s willing to pay the correct amount and therefore, he cleposited the amount in the Court of First Instance a nd asked that Felix be ordered to receive them and to permit him, Gregorio, to continue in possession as lessee. Felix having received summons, he filed an answer alleging that the rental he had demanded was the conect one. The case was tried in the Court of First Instance and decision was rendered for Felix, dismissing the case. After judgment had become final, Felix presented his own action, for unlawful detainer, against G1·egorio, but Gregorio, upon receipt of the summons in this case, n(Jw filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that this was a suit on exactly the same cause of action betw~n them and that since Felix foJ'got to secure the correct remedy in the first case by filing his necessary counterclaim for unlawful detainer, the judgment in t he first case already ba rred him from instituting the second action. Decide the motion. JV. Juan sues Leon on a sum of money for b1·each of contract; but before trial, ~uan goes to Tokyo on business; he is there when his attorney receives notice of t l'ial; therefore the attorney at once serves notice upon Leon's attorney in Manila for t he taking of Juan's deposition before the Philippine consul in Tokyo upon oral examination, on a definite time and place, before the scheduled trial in Manila; Leon's September 30, 1962 LAWYERS JOURNAL Page 285
pages: 284-285