Agapito Balili

Exam: midterm examination in criminal law december 4, 2020

Word count: 0

Email: sanbasec.balili@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law

Teacher: Atty. Ric Bastasa

Agapito Balili

2020-12-07

Agapito Balili

Exam: midterm examination in criminal law december 4, 2020

Word count: 0

Email: sanbasic.balili@gmail.com

Class: criminal law

Teacher: Atty. Ric Bastasa

Agapito Balili

2020-12-07

Agapito2 balili

Exam: midterm examination in criminal law december 4, 2020

Word count: 1185

Email: sanbasec.balili@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law

Teacher: Atty. Ric Bastasa

1. Dela Rentas's contention is not tenable. Under Revised Penal Code, specifically on the provisionsn on Malversation of public funds, an accused of this offense can still be held liabe even if, he or she is no longer connected with his former office in which the alleged crime was commited. Hence, even if Henry has already transferred to another agency, PDIC in this problem, he can still be charged of such offense.

Dela Renta's argument cannot be countenanced. A suspension pendente lite can still be issued upon him. The law does not categorically provides that when an accused for Malversation of public funds is no longer in office as he has already transferred to another agency, he cannot anymore by charged of his irregular acts committed while in his previous employment.

2. It is submitted that only the petitions for disbarment filed with the Supreme Court is meritorious. This is so because ombudsman under the law is an impecheable government official. As such impeacheale official, he cannot be sued before the Office of the Ombudsman itself.

3. The court may award them indemnity for the death of the victim, moral damages, and exemplary damages if the evidence would show the wantonnes and gravity of the offense. Under the prevailing jurisprudence, the amount of indemnity to the life of the victim is 100,000.00 pesos; moral damages 100,000.00 and exemplary damages at the sound discretion of ghe court.

4. The isuue shall be resolved, thus: The filing of the petition for the declaration of nullity of Marriage, dissoltion and liquidation of conjugal partnership of gains and damages would not in any way affect the verdict in the criminal case of adultery, the same is not a prejudicial question to the criminal case. The compromise agreement entered into by the petioner and the private respondent is also of no moment and deserves scant consideration. Howeverr, the contention of the petitioner in his motion to annul the compromise agreement is untenable. Under the law, the non-giving of shares from the conjugal pqrtnership of gains or community property applies only to the guilty party in actions for legal separation.

5. (a.) The crime committed is only "theft". This is so because defendnt's possession of the ring is only a physical or defacto possession not juridical in nature. Under the law, when a thing or personal property is entrusted to another by way trust, or to sell the thing, or on commission or under obligation to return the same if not disposed of, the possession of the latter is juridical in nature, and failufre to comply with these conditions would make the person to whom the thing is delivered liable or guilty of estafa punishable under par. 1(b) of Section 315 of the Re ised Penal Code. If, as in this case, the possession of the thing is only phisical or defacto, not juridical, his liabilithy of non-compliance of those conditions mention is not estafa but rather "theft".

(b.) Material possession may be distinguised from a juridical possession, in that:

In material possession ,the possessor of the thing, good or personal property is only holding the thing phisically and the possessor has no obligation to comply any condition, unlike in juridical possession where the possessor of the thing or personal property has an obligation either as trustee, or to sell the thing, or on commission, or under obligation to return the thing if not sold. When the thing which is under physical possession is lost in the possession of transferee, the latter is liable only for theft, if the thing is lost under the juridical possession of the possessor, the pssessor may be held liable for estafa.

6. If the teller of the bank appropriates the money of a depositor for personal gain or use, the crime committed is theft. This is so, because the teller's possession of the depositor's money is also the possession of the bank, and therefore only physical or material possession, and not juridical. Under the law, when the possession of the money or thing is merrely material or physical as in this case, using it for personal gain makes the user lible for theft.

7. The crime committed is theft. He took the share of his brother partner fraudulenty and without the latter's knowing or knowledge, he took it for his personal gain to the prejudice of his partner. In other words all the elements of the crime of theft are present in this case.

8. The crime committed is Estafa through misappropriation and/ or abuse of confidence. The accused here received the money, in the total amount of 3,346,670.00, on the condition that he should effect or comply of what is required for him to do on the said aggregate amount of money in the problem. But instead, accused VELAYO misapplied, misappropriated and converted to her own personal use and benefit the said amount of money to the great prejudice of WJA . The elements of estafa by abuse of confidence are: 1. the accused received the money or personal property in trust or on commission, or for administration, or under obligation to return the same if the purpose for which it is intended is not achieved; 2. that the accused misappropriated the money or personal property received by him; 3. The entruster is prejudiced by such act of conversion and misappropriation. All these elements of estafa under Article 315 (1)(b) are present . Hence, the crime committed.

9. This case is is illustrated in the crime of malversation through negligence. While malversation is generally committed through deceitful criminal intent or dolo the same may be committed through negligence. If the commission of the crime is done i good faith, the penalty for the crime is tempered.

10. The maxim "actus no facit reum, nisi mens sit rea" means the act

11. (1) On the basis of said information, the crime committd is qualified theft. Under the Revised Penal Code, if the thing embezzled or taken by an accountable officer, like the Postmaster in this case, is a mail matter, the crime committed is qualified theft.

12. Yes. Even if an accused is charge with intention malversation, he can still be convicted of malversation by negligence. This is so, because, the law provides that malversation can be committed either by criminal intent or by negligence.

13. X committed direct bribery. Under the law, a public officer who accepts an offer or promise in exchange of doing an act in favor of another, commits the crime direct bribery.

14.

15. Direct Bribery, indirect bribery nd corruption of public officer may be disti guished as follows:

In Direct brib ery, a piblic officer must have to do something in favor of another, in consideratio of a gift, while in idirect bribery it is not necessay that the offender should do somethi ng in exchange of a gift. In Direct bribery mere agreement consumates the crime while i indirect bribery, it is necessary that the officer accepts the gift. Corruption of public official is done by the giver of the gift, offer or promise.

16.

Agapito2 balili

2020-12-07

Aisha Mie Faith Fernandez

Exam: midterm examination in criminal law december 4, 2020

Word count: 1392

Writing time: 177 minutes

Email: mie.aisha23@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

a.) The contention of dela Renta is untenable

Malversation is committed by any public officer, who by reason of the duties of his office is accountable for public funds or property shall appropriate the same or shall take or misappropriate or shall consent or through abandonment or negligence permit any person to take such public funds or property.

In the given case, all the elements of malversation are present. The fact that dela Renta is no longer the employee of PNB is immaterial, since the offense was committed by him during his employment in the PNB of which he is a public officer in custody of public funds.

b.) Mr. dela Renta may still be suspended.

PDIC is a government instrumentality hence, the suspension of dela Renta may still apply.

The motion to dismiss the petition for disbarment shall not be granted, because it is the Supreme Court which has jurisdiction for disbarment cases. It is the Supreme Court who has power to discipline lawyers for misconduct, gross negligence in the profession.

The motion to dismiss the complaints for acts of lasciviousness shall be granted since it is under the jurisdiction of the RTC being an act or omission defined under the Revised Penal Code.

III

The heirs shall be awarded of civil indemnity amounting to P75,000.00, Moral damages amounting to P75,000.00, exemplary damages amounting to P50,000.00 and temperate damages amounting to 50,000.00.

The contention of the petitioner is not valid.

Separation of property may be effected voluntarily or for valid cause subject to the approval of the court. The previous conviction of the respondent does not deprive him to share with the conjugal properties, since both the petitioner and respondent voluntarily executed the compromise agreement which is a separation of property allowed by law.

a.) The crime committed is Estafa through Misappropriation.

Estafa through misappropriation is committed when the offender receives a personal property with the consent of the owner and with the oligation to return it , but thereafter misappropriate it or denies receipt thereof.

In the gven case, the offender received the ring from the owner with its consent but later on he sold it and appropriated the money to her own use. Hence, all the elements are present.

b.) In material possession the offender has a physical possession of the personal property acquired either with consent or without consent of the owner but which gives him no right over the thing. While in juridical possession the offender received the personal property in trust or which gives him a right over the thing.

If the possession material and the receiver failed to return it or misappropriated it, the crime committed is theft. On the other hand, if the possession is juridical and the receiver failed to return it the crime committed is estafa

The crime committed is qualified theft.

Qualified Theft is committed when there is (1)taking of personal property, (2)the said personal property belongs to another, (3) the said taking is with the intent to gain,(4) without the consent of the owner, (5) it is accomplishd without the use of violence or intimidation and (6) and done with abuse of confidence.

The facts of the case shows that the bank teller appropriates the money of the depositor for personal gain or use, and with abuse of confidence reposed upon him by reason of his duties and functions.

VII

The crime committed is estafa through misappropriation.

Estafa through misappropriation is committed by any person who shall defraud another with unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence by misappropriating or denying having received personal property under the obligation to deliver or to return the same to the prejudiced of another.

In the given case, B defrauded A by denying receipt of the proceeds of the business and misappropriated it to the prejudice of A. Hence the crime committed is estafa through misappropriation.

VIII

The crime committed is estafa through false pretense.

Estafa through false pretense is committed by any person who shall defraud another by falsely pretending to possess qualifications, property, credit, business and influence or by deceit which are executed prior to the parting of the property.

In the given case, the accused defrauded the victim by pretending to be the President of the Alorasa Realty which induces the party to enter in the transaction.

The crime allegedly committed by the accused is malversation.

Malversation is committed by a public officer, being accountable for public funds or property by reason of the duties of his office appropriates the same, or takes, misappropriates or consent the taking thereof by other person or permits him to take it through abandonment or negligence.

In the given information, it was alleged that the post master misappropriated the funds under his custody by reason of his office and misappropriate the same for his personal use. All the elements of malversation are present.

XII

Yes, an accused charged with intentional malversation can be convicted of malversation by negligence if the evidence presented can sustain the conviction of the latter offense.

XIII

The crime committed by X is direct bribery.

In the given case, all the elements are present. X, accepted the offer of Y in relation to the garnishment of the latter's property which is relative to the official duties of X. Hence X committed direct bribery.

XIV

Direct bribery is committed by any public officer who agrees to perform an act which constitutes a crime in connection with the performance of his official function and in consideration of gift or present offered or promised to and received by him. While Indirect bribery is committed by any public officer who shall accepts gifts offered to him by reason of his office.

Yes, a crime of attempted corruption of a public official may be committed when the accused did not perform all the acts of execution which will produce the felony or the bribery as a consequence of a cause other than his own voluntary desistance. This happens when the accused offered and delivered money to a public official but the latter did not allow himself to be bribed by refusing to accept the money offered .

XVI

The principle of dubio pro reo applies when the court is faced with two conflicting interpretation of a statute , one which is prejudicial to the accused and another favorable to him. The rule is that, the ambiguity should be resolved in favor of the accused.

XVII

a.) If the Indeterminate sentence law is applied to crimes punishable by a special law, the accused shall be sentence to a maximum term which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by law and the minimum shall not be less that the minimum term fixed.

XVIII

Under Article 334 of the Revised Penal Code, A husband who shall (1) keep a mistress in the conjugal dwelling, such as when the husband bring his paramour in the conjugal house and keep her there ; (2) have sexual intercourse under scandalous circumstances with a woman not his wife; and (3) shall cohabit with her in any other place is guilty of concubinage. Cohabit means living together as husband and wife for a period of time .

XIX

The Municipal Trial Courts or inferior courts has jurisdiction on cases of concubinage, since well settled is the rule that diestierro being a lighter penalty is under the jurisdiction of the lower courts/inferior courts. The basis is the gravity of the offense and the imposable penalty.

The contention of Ha Datu Tawahig is untenable.

While the State gives paramount consideration to the rights of indigenous people, such right however does not compel courts to desist from taking cognizance of criminal cases involving indigenous people. Prosecution and punishment of crimes is an attribute of the State's police power hence it cannot disregard criminal prosecution to the prejudice of those who are objects of criminal offenses. Furthermore, the Indigeneous Act does not operate to facilitate the miscarriage of justice.

Thus, the courts of law shall take cognizance over the case.

Aisha Mie Faith Fernandez

2020-12-07

Ameliano Himang

Exam: midterm examination in criminal law december 4, 2020

Word count: 1749

Email: mhelghimang@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law Review Class

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

Ameliano G. Himang

Criminal Law Review Class

Judge Ric Bastasa

1. Dela Renta's contention is not tenable, the crime of malversation is committed by a public officer who, by reason of the duties of his office, is accountable for public funds or property, shall appropriate the same or shall take or misappropriate.

Here, the mere fact that he was transferred already to another government office at PDIC is not a defense for malversation as the later is still a government office.

He can be suspended because PDIC is still a government owned of controlled corporation office and suspension is not a penalty but it is an aid for the investigation team to conduct the investigation without any harassment of the witnesses, and the tampering of the documents.

2. Both motions are not meritorious the ombudsman has jurisdiction over his person for acts of lasciviousness committed against his stenographer and likewise the supreme court has administrative jurisdiction for petition for disbarment against him as a judge.

Under the code of Judicial ethics, supreme court has jurisdiction for disbarment proceedings against a lawyer or a judge and a disbarment proceedings is a sui generis; is usually a punishment for unethical or criminal conduct but may also be imposed for incompetency and incapacity.

3. In crime of homicide, the kind of damages may the trial court award to them are civil indemnity in the amount of 50,000,00; moral damages 50,000 and exemplary damages 50,000 as the case may be or with the attending circumtances.

4. I would decide in favor of the innocent spouse, under the law in cases of anulment of marriage or legal separation the share of the spouse in bad faith in the net profits of the community property or conjugal partnership of gains shall be forfieted in favor of the common children or, if there are none, the children of the guilty spouse by a privious marriage or in default of children the innocent apouse. Likewise, the motion to annul the compromise agreement should be granted, and the share of the community property should be given in favor of the innocent spouse assuming that there are no common children or the children of the guilty spouse by previous marriage.

a. The crime committed is estafa, because the accused defruaded another, by abuse of confidence, or by means of deciet and the damge or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party.

Here, there was abuse of confidence and deciet committed against the offended party; that instead of pledging the ring the accused immediately carried to his neighbors whom she sold it and appropriated the money to her own use, there is an element of damage caused to the offended party. Hence, he committed the crime of estafa.

b. Juridical possession means a possession which gives the transferee a right over the thing which the transferee may set up even against the owner, while in material possession, she held no independent right or title, which she can set up.

6. The crime committed is qualified theft, under the law, qualified theft is committed when there be taking of personal property; the said proeperty belongs to another; that the taking is be done with intent to gain and without the consent of the owner; and without the use of violence against persons or force upon things; and it makes as qualified when the theft is committed with grave abuse of confidence;

Here, a bank teller is a position of a trust and confidence and he could not committed the crime had he not an access to the funds of the bank, hence, qualified theft is the proper penalty if a bank teller appropriates the money of the depositor.

7. The A is civilly liable only as mentioned under article 332 of the revised penal code, persons exempt from a criminal liablity; no criminal liablity, but only civil liability shall result from the commission of the crime of theft, swindling, or malicious mischief committed by brothers and sisters.

Here. A and B were brothers, the act of taking the share of B by A, by means of lying constitute deceit which is one of the elements of estafa. Hence, A is exempted from criminal liability as mentioned under article 332 as estafa was one of the crimes mentioned under the same article.

8. The crime committed based on the above-mentioned information is estafa. The elements of estafa are, that the accused defruaded another; by abuse of confidence; or by means of deceit; and that damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party.

In this case, being the President of the company misapplied, misappropriated and converted to her own personal use and benefit, and despite repeated demand made upon her, failed to comply, to the damage and prejudice to the complainant in the amount of Php 3,346,670.00. so it is clear that all the elements of estafa are present, there was abuse of confidence being the President of the company; there was deceit as the accused misapplied, misappropriated and converted to her own personal use and benefit; there was also and element of damage or prejudice which is capable of pecuiary estimation is caused to the offended party in the amount of Php 3,346,670.

9. The case was illustrated in People Vs. Luis Tabuena; accused Tabuena and Dabao both public officers at MIAA they being the only ones authorized to make withdrawals against the cash accounts of MIAA pursuant to its board resolution, they consfired, with each other, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully, feloniuosly and with intent to defruad the government take and misappropriate the amount of Php 25M from MIAA funds. Both accused misappropriated and coverted the proceeds thereof to their personal use and benefit to the damage and prejudice to the government.

Here, both accused were acquitted based on the evidence presented, the supreme court ruled that as between a mere apprehension of a dangerous precedent and an actual violation of constitutionally ensrined rights, it is definitely the latter that merits our immediate attention. accroding to the high court, we must not succumd to the temptation to commit the greatest injustice of visiting the sins of the wrongdoers upon the innocent. Hence, Tabuena and Adolfo are hereby acquitted of the crime of malversation.

10. Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea, means a crime is not committed if the mind of the person performing the act complained of is innocent. it was applied is resolving the case which was reiterated in People Vs, Pacana, ordinarily, evil intent must unite with an unlawful; act for there to be a crime.

11. The crime committed by the accused is Malversation of public funds, because the offender is a public officer as the postmaster of said municipality; that he has custody and control of the fees, charges and stamps collected by reasons of his position; and the funds were public funds as it was owned by the government.

12. Yes, he can be convicted becuase the law provides, that any public officer who, by reason of the duties of his office, is accountable for public funds or property, shall appropriate the same or shall misappropraiate or consent, through abandonement or negligence or shall permit other person to take such public funds be guilty of malversation.

It is clear that malversation by negligence is necessary included in intentional marversation.

13. The crime commited by X is bribery, under the law bribery is committed by a public official, receiving gifts, offers of presents in consideration of his office. Here Mr. X courts sheriff is a public official, he received the amount of 10,000 from Y in comsideration of lifting the garnishment order which is related to his function as sheriff.

14. The crime committed is indirect bribery, under the law bribery is committed by public officer, that the accused received by himself or thru another some gift or present offer in consideration of office.

Here, De Lima is a public officer as Department of Justice secretary and P Dayan being an employee of the DOJ. That De Lima receieves the amount in order to support her senatorial bid in May 2016 election and no promise to do an act, it is enough that she acceptes gifts offered to her.

15. In direct bribery, the offender agrees to perform or performs an act or refrains from doind something, because of the gift or promise in indirect bribery, it is not necessary that the officer should do any particular act or even promise to do an act, as it is enough that he accepts gifts offered to him by reasons of his office.

No crime of attempted corruption of public official because from the moment the accused offer something, gift or presents to the public official in consideration of his office, the accused is liable.

16. Dubio pro rio doctrine means that a defendant may not be convicted by the court when doubts about his or her guilt. The rule of lenity is the doctrine that ambiguity should be resolved in favor of the more lenient punishment.

17.

a. Indeterminate sentence law is applied in crimes punished by special laws, the penalty should not be more than the maximum period and not less than in the minimum period, meaning the penalty impossable is within the sound discretion of the judge provided that it should be within the range of not more than the maximum and not less than the minimum penalty.

b. No, it is incorrect because indeterminate sentence law is applicable only when the maximum penalty of imprisonment exceeds one year. it applies both violations of the RPC and special laws.

18. The 3 specific acts of concubinage are, the husband; 1. shall keep a mistress in the conjugal dwelling, 2. shall have sexual intercourse, under scandalous circumstances with a woman not his wife; 3,. shall cohabit with her in any other place.

19. The Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction to try and hear the concubinage charge beacuse it carries the penalty aboved six years. Hence RTC has jurisdiction.

20. The contention of Datu Tawing is not tenable because the indigenous peoples rights act does not compel the court of law to desist from taking cognizance of the criminal case involving indigenous peoples and the prosecution for rape charges should continue and the customary law of the IPs is not a bar to prosecution of the crime of rape. Hence, mandamus should be denied.

Ameliano Himang

2020-12-07

Anilyn Evangelista

Exam: midterm examination in criminal law december 4, 2020

Word count: 1062

Writing time: 165 minutes

Email: anilyn_evangelista114@yahoo.com

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

No. The contention of dela Renta is untenable.

In the crime of malversation of public funds, it is not necessarily that the accused charged is still holding the position. It is not one of the requisite for the crime of malversation of public funds. Hence, dela Renta can be validly charged if the said crime.

Dela Renta cannot be suspended. A suspension pending litigation is valid only when such accused was still an employee in the case at hand by the PNB. The purpose of this is to avoid any influence that an employee has pending investigation. In the case at bar, since dela Renta was no longer an employee of PNB then it follows that suspension pending litigation cnnot be validly imposed against dela Renta.

As to the case filed before the Office of the Ombudsman, the motion to dismiss is with merit.

As to the disbarment case filed before the Supreme Court, the motion to dismiss is without merit. It is within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to hear and try disbarment cases.

The trial court may award moral and exemplary damages in the amount of 75,000.00 and 30,000.00 respectively.

The allegation of the petitioner is withour merit.

The Compromise Agreement partially divided the properties of the conjugal partnership between the parties and does not deal with the validity of marriage or legal separation. The law does not impose disqualification to the quilty spouse in sharing the conjugal properties.

Hence, the allegation of the petitioner is withour merit.

The crime committed is theft.

Material possession exist when the thing was only entrusted or the possession was de facto while when the delivery of the thing has the effect of transferring the possession then it is a juridical possession.

When the delivery of the personal property did not have the effect of transferring juridical possession then the disposal with gainful intent is theft, if the delivery has the effect of transferring juridical posession then subsequent disposal thereof with intent to gain is estafa and lastly, if the possession is only material and the accused occupies position of confidence, then the subsequent appropriation of the thing with intent to gain is qualified theft.

The crime committed is qualified theft. While it is true that the possession of the teller of the money is only material, the teller occupies a position of confidence, hence the crime committed is qualified theft.

A committed the crime of estafa. Estafa is committed when the accused has the juridical possession of personal property and misappropriate such for his own benefit.

The crime committed is estafa.

Settled is the rule that, when the personal property is received by the offender from the offended party in trust or on commission or for administration, the offender acquires both material and possession of the thing.

In the case at hand, since the offender has the material and juridical possession of the money in trust for her and subsequently used it for her own benefit, then she committed the crime of estafa.

This case is illustrated when there is no intent to commit the crime and the defense of good faith can be validly appreciated.

10.

Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea means that the act itself does not constitute guilt unless done with a guilty intent. Ordinarily speaking, a crime is not committed if the mind of the person doing the act in question be innocent.

The accused committed the crime of malversation of public funds. Malversation is committed when a public official who is accountable for the public funds misappropriate such funds for persosnal benefit.

In the case at bar, the Postmaster who is accountable for the funds collected, misappropriate the same for his own benefit. Hence, the Postmaster is liable for malversation of public funds.

Yes, an accused who is charged with intentional malversation can be convicted of malversation by negligence where the evidence sustains the latter mode of perpetrating the offense.

Mr. X committed the crime of direct bribery. There is direct bribery when there is an agreement between the public official and the person to whom the favor is made. Hence, the Sheriff here is liable direct bribery for he concur for the commission of the crime in consideration of the gift.

In direct bribery, there is an agreement between the public officer and the giver of the gift or present while in indirect bribery there is no such agreement. In the former, the offender agrees to perform an act or refrain from doing something while in the latter, it is not necessary that the officer should do any particular act, it is enough that he accepts gifts offered to him by reason of his office.

Yes, there is such crime as attempted corruption of public official. This will exist when the public official did not accpet the gift or present given to such public official.

17-a

Of the offense is punishable under special law, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same law.

17-b

First, when the husband keep a mistress in the conjugal dwelling.

Second, when the husband shall have sexual intercourse in a scandalous manner with a woman who is not his wife.

Third, when the husband cohabits another woamn other than his wife in any other place.

It is within the jurisdiction of the inferior courts. In the interest of the orderly administration of justice, the concubine must be tried together with the erring husband in the inferior courts. The law did not intend that the erring husband be tried with inferior courts while the concubine be tried in the Regional Trial Courts.

No, the contention of Ha Datu Tahawig is incorrect.

The Court cannot be compelled to honor the pronouncements made in the Dadantulan Tribal Court. When there is a conflict between the customary laws and the laws of the land such as the Penal Code, such customary laws will not prevail over the penal laws. The creation of the rights of these Indigenous People was never intended to miscarriage justice.

Hence, Ha Datu Tahawig's contention is incorrect.

Anilyn Evangelista

2020-12-07

Ariel Acopiado

Exam: midterm examination in criminal law december 4, 2020

Word count: 2211

Writing time: 182 minutes

Email: spitifirea211@gmail.com

Class: JD - IV Criminal Law

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

1. a. No. Dela Renta's contention lacks merit.

The rule is that a public officer committing a crime shall be subject to prosecution for such a position is that of public trust and highest accountability. There is nothing in the law that provides absolution to a public officer who has moved on fromo from one government carreer to another leaving anomalies in his wake in the previous public instrumentality he was connected.

In this case, it is clear that the irregularities occured when Renta was still Regional Bank Auditor in the PNB, which is also a government institution. As a Regional Auditor under the law, his alleged illegal acts shall be under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.

b. He can still be suspended.

Under the law, the same does not distinguish as to whether the post in government he is now is in the previous government organization he served or in the current one he is in. The law only provides that pending litigation of alleged irregularities, a government official can be suspended to ensure the integrity of the investigation.

2. The motion for dismissal should be rejected while the petition for disbarment can be entertained by the Supreme Court.

Under the law, or more specifically the constitution, it is the Ombudsman, not the Deputy Ombudsman, who is an impeachable official. Further, drawing from the same, the regulation of the membership of the Bar is solely vested in the Supreme Court.

In the situation presented, since Reyes is not an impeachable officer, he can be sued. However, such a suit must be brought to the Sandiganbayan. Being a bar member, Reyes' membership may be reviewed by the Supreme Court.

3. They may be awarded temperate damages of P25,000.

Law and jurisprudence provide that temperate damages are those damages awarded by the court when actual damages cannot be actually determined and a reasonable estimate is given.

4. No. The allegation is groundless.

There is no law in the civil code nor in the family code, that disqualifies a spouse guilty of adultry from the share of conjugal assets. On the contrary the law allows the separation of property by the spouses either by reason voluntary in nature, to be approved by the court, or that in the nature of legal separation or nullity of marriage.

In the case herein stated, it is clear that the compromise agreement is one entered into voluntarily by the spouses. Hence, the same cannot be annulled.

5. (a)The crime committed here is merely theft.

All the elements of theft are present in the case: (i)taking of personal property, (ii) thing not owned by taker, (iii) with intent to gain, (iv) without permission from owner, and (v) without violence or intimidation or force among things.

(b) Juridical possession is one wherein there is conversion to the possession of the thing such that the transferee can even impose the same as his own against the original transferor. Material or physical possession on the other hand, is opposite to this and merely indicates a right that is derived from the original transferor such as that of a trust or administration.

This is relevant in the sense that juridical possession is a necessary element in estafa. Such that by deceit, fraud and machinations, the property taken is converted for the perpetrator's own personal use. The same is not present in theft.

6. The crime committed is qualified theft.

Under the law qualified theft is when the following are present: (a)taking of personal property, (b) thing not owned by taker, (c) with intent to gain, (d) without permission from owner, (e)the taking be done with abuse of trust or authority and (f) without violence or intimidation or force among things.

It is clear in this case, that a bank teller, abusing the confidence of the depositor unlawfully and with intent to gain deprived the latter of her money. This fulfills all elements for a qualified theft.

7. The crime committed by A is that of qualified theft.

Under the law, exemptions for close family relations only apply when the crime committed is simple theft, estafa, or malicious mischief. Accordingly, qualified theft is perpetrated when there is the taking of another's personal property without his permission with intent to gain, without violence, intimidation or force on things and with abuse of confidence.

In this case, what is involved is not simple theft, for there is an agreement as to the partnership in a business venture. This places one of the siblings in a position of confidence, which he abused to perpetrate the theft, hence the same is qualified and cannot anymore be that of simple theft eligible for exemption under the law.

8. The crime committed is estafa through misappropriation

The proper elements of estafa through misappropriation are: (a) when there are personal property received in trust or similar circumtance, (b) when there is unauthorized conversion of said property. (c) when such conversion is injurious to the trustor and (d) there is a demand for the property. In case law, estafa can only prosper if there was juridical possession of the thing, not just mere physical possession. This means that there was the actual power to dispose of the property in question which can operate against the original transferor. Juridical possession is established along with material possession in cases of trust of personal property for administration.

In the information provide, it is clear that all the elements were etablished. Further, Velayo received the property not as a mere physical possessor but with juridical possesion since she was tasked in the administration of said funds in behalf of the company.

9. The case where this was elucidated was in Tabuena. The facts of this case was that there was a memorandum by the president authorizing the withdrawal of sums of money totaling in the millions for payments of advances. Accused were charged and convicted of malversation in the Sandiganbayan. Accused cited good faith in their petition. Court granted the same citing that there is no intentional malversation, the act being that they didn't have willful intention to commit and crime and that there was no negligence since the accused had no choice but to withraw said amounts by compulsion of a presidential order which is clearly a superior order. Following such a compulsion in an era of dictatorial rule, the accused cannot be held liable and were thus acquitted.

10. Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea means that for the illegal act to be punishable it must be done with ill intent or with a guilty mind. This is usually applied to cases involving crimes related to mala in se, or crimes where ill intent is usually used as a basis for rendering a conviction. This is to be distinguished from crimes of mala prohibita, where the prohibited act is not necessarily evil or couched in ill intent, but the act itself is illegal per legal fiat.

11. The crime is malversation of public funds.

Malversation of public funds arises when there is misappropriation of public funds by a public officer, when such funds are received by virtue of his office. Under the law, non-accounting of such funds, constitutes a prima facie case that there has been malversation and such funds were used for his personal benefit.

The information provides all of the essential elements as stated.

12. He can still be convicted.

As established in case law, the courts do not exculpate a person when a charge in the information is that of intentional malversation or malversation due to negligence and what is proven be the other since the underlying offense is still that of malversation.

The same elements still constituting the two, only lesser penalties are imposed, hence conviction can still be made.

13. The crime committed by X would be direct bribery.

Under the law, any public officer who agrees to perfrom an act constituting a crime, in connection with the performance of his official duties, in consideration of a promise or offer received or to be received shall be liable.

In this case, it is clear that part of the duties of X was that of following the court order, which was in this case, to garnish the funds. However, instead of doing it, he was corrupted by promise of a reward by Y.

14. The crime committed is that of violationg of RA 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, mainly involving the sale and trade of illegal drugs. The tribunal that has jurisdiction is the Regional Trial Court.

Under the law mentioned, the sale or trading of illegal drugs is punished such that in the a case of similar facts, the same absorbs direct bribery which was alleged in the information. Further, under said law the jurisdiction to try drug cases is vested in the RTC, which is proper since it is a court of general jurisdiction. And although the Sandiganbayan covers erring officials whose salary grades equal to that or exceeds grade 27, which is true in this case, the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction is couched only as general in nature. This is in contrast to the jurisdiction given to the RTC in drug cases which is a specific law. Hence, specific prevails over the general law.

15. Direct bribery occurs when a public official, reneges from his official duty and performs an illegal act constituting a crime involving his public office by considerations offered for such a purpose. Indirect bribery on the other hand, involves the acceptance of gifts by virtue of his position. The former requires an overt act, the latter, mere acceptance by virtue of office is already punishable.

Distinguishing direct bribery and indirect bribery from corruption of a public official, the former two involve the public official himself, while the latter is charged on who offered the consideration to tempt the public officer.

There is a crime of attempted corruption of a public official when a person offers a consideration or promise to a public officer, but the latter rejects the offer. An example is when a person in the Bureau of customs rejects an offer of 1 Million in return to allowing a foreign shipment to pass undocumented. The offeror of the 1 Million wil be charged with attempted corruption of public official.

16. In dubio pro reo principle means in case of doubt, rule for the accused. In the case of People vs. Valdez, said principle was likened to the rule of lenity. Said rule states that when a penal statute is prone to more than one interpretation, the one that is least prejudicial to the accused should be applied.

17. (a) The ISL in special laws are applied in such a manner wherein the maximum indeterminate penalty does not exceed what is prescribed under the special law and the minimum sentence, also does not go below the prescribed penalty. However, if the special law, follows the penalty structure in the Revised Penal Code then the maximum penalty shall be within the ranged of the imposable periods considering the mitigating and aggravating circumstances present. The minimum penalty in this instance would then be within the range of the penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed.

(b) There being a mitigating circumstance of admission of guilt by Peke, the straight penalty of 1 year is proper. The maximum mus be prision correctional in the minium period due to the 1 mitigating circumstance which is properly covered in the periods mentioned in the problem.

18. Three specific acts of concubinage by a husband are: (a) keeping the mistress in the conjugal dwelling - that is the mistress lives in the home of the spouses, (b) having sexual intercourse, under scandalous circumstances - that is carnal knowledge that is not discreet such that it affects the standing of the husband's family in the community and (c) cohabitation with the mistress in any other place - that is the husband staying for in a place with a paramour, living with each other as if they were married.

19. The court that has jurisdiction to try the case is the MTC.

This is for a reason that in established jurisprudence, the court considers that the penalty of imprisionment not exceeding 6 years in under the jurisdiction of the MTC. Considering that distierro is a lighter penalty since it does not involve imprisonment, but merely banishment, the same should be lodged with the MTC so as not to split jurisdiction.

20. No. The contention of Tawahig is incorrect.

As provided in case law and the statutes. Membership in an indigenious group does not grant immunity from national laws, especially those penal in nature. While the State in the present constitution, promotes the cultures of indigenous groups, it does not mean that there will be no harmonization of laws, and that indigenous groups have absolute autonomy from the State. Indigenious laws and customs only operate as between the relations of members within such a group and not against outsiders, especially not the State. It is a well-known doctrine that when crimes are committed it is principally done against State interests.

In this case, the Tribal court decision, holds no sway over those concerning violations against the State, hence, the contention of Tawahig must be dimissed.

Ariel Acopiado

2020-12-07

Arnold Bongcayao

Exam: midterm examination in criminal law december 4, 2020

Word count: 1191

Writing time: 160 minutes

Email: arnoldbongcayao@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

A. No, Dela Renta's contention is not tenable.

All the elements of the malversation of public funds are present when he was previously employed in the PNB. His subsequent employment with PDIC will not exonerate his criminal liability.

Thus, his motion to dismiss will be denied.

B. Henry Dela Renta will be suspended in his later employer PNB.

The law intends to insulate the investigation from employee's influence in the gathering of evidence. His continued employment will give suspicion to the impartiality of the investigation.

2. No. The first motion to dismiss for the acts of lasciviousness will prosper.

The Office of the Ombudsman is not a court who has jurisdiction to try the case.

Hence, it it will be dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over his person and office.

The second motion to dismiss will not prosper.

Disbarment proceedings filed before the Supreme Court are sui generis. Motion to dismiss is not allowed.

Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to try cases involving suspension and dismissal of judges.

3. The court will award temperate or moderate damages in the amount of Php 75,000.00 according to recent jurisprudence.

It maybe recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot, from the nature of the case be proved with certainty.

4. The compromise agreement is valid. The waiver of her share is in accord with our existing law.

Her conviction of the crime of the adultery forfeits her share in favor of the innocent spouse.

A. The crime committed is theft.

Conversion of personal property by the defendant having mere material possession of the said property constitute theft.

B. Material possession is tangible possession of a personal property.

While juridical possession means a possession which gives the transferee a right over the thing which the gives the transferee a right over a thing which the transferee may set up even against the owner.

The relevance of this distinction is this: there is only a transfer of material possession in cases of theft. On the other hand, there is transfer of material and juridical possession in cases of estafa. Furthermore, there is transfer of material possession with abuse of confidence in cases of qualified theft.

6. The crime committed by the teller is theft.

Payment by third persons to the teller is payment to the bank itself. The the teller is a mere custodian or keeper of the funds received, and has no independent right or title to retain possession the same against the bank.

7. The crime committed is qualified theft.

There is taking of personal property of another without the owner's consent. It was done without the use of violence or intimidation.

A took material possession of the share of B with abuse of confidence, thus A may be liable for qualified theft.

8. The crime committed is estafa.

Velayo defrauded WJA Holdings Inc. with unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence.

An agent who receives the proceeds of sales of the two parcels of land delivered to him in agency by his principal and appropriates it for herself is liable for estafa.

9. It is settled that good faith is a valid defense in a prosecution for malversation for it would negate criminal intent on the part of the accused.

This is the principle enunciated in the ruling of the cases US vs. Catolico and US vs. Elvina.

The Supreme Court stressed that: to constitute a crime, the act must be accompanied by criminal intent, or by such negligence or indifference to duty or to consequences as in law, is equivalent to criminal intent.

10. Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea means the act is not criminal when the mind is not criminal.

Otherwise stated, a crime is not committed if the mind of the person performing the act complained of is innocent.

This is applied only to dolo cases where deceit is always an element. There is deceit when there is deliberate intent.

11. The crime committed by the Postmaster is Malversation of Public Funds.

He is a public officer that had custody or control of funds or property by reason of the duties of his office. Those funds were public funds for which he was accountable and that he appropriated it to the prejudice of the public interest.

12. Yes, malversation by negligence can be commmited through abandonment or negligence by an accountable public officer by permitting other persons to appropriate public funds.

13. X committed the crime of direct bribery.

X is a public officer who has accepted the promised money in exchange for not doing his official duty. This circumstance fulfills all the elements of the crime of direct bribery.

14. The crime committed is violation to the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and the Sandiganbayan has the jurisdiction over the case.

Since the accused were having a salary grade higher than 27, then the case must be filed in the Sandiganbayan.

15. In direct bribery, the public officer must do something in consideration of the gift. In indirect bribery, there is no such requirement.

Mere agreement consummates the crime of direct bribery if the act agreed upon amounts to a crime. In indirect briberym the public officer must accept the gift to consummate the crime.

Yes, there is a crime of attempted corruption of public official. This happens when the public officer refused to be corrupted, the corruptor is only liable for attempted corruption corruption but there is no bribery.

16. In dubio pro reo principle means that when there is doubt in the resolution of criminal cases, it must resolved in favor of the accused.

17.

A) In violation of a special law, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by the law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same.

The rule in offsetting is not applicable in crimes punished under a special penal law as in this case.

B. Yes, the judge has the discretion to fix the penalty as long as it is within the minimum and maximum range as provided by the special law.

18. Concubinage is committed by a husband and his paramour under any of the following ways:

a) Keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling.

b) Having sexual intercourse under scandalous circumstance with a woman not his wife.

c) Cohabiting with her in any other place.

19. The crime of concubinage is within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the inferior courts.

In the case of People of the Philippines vs. Elviro Aggabao and Vilma Suratos, the Supreme Court held that the penalty of destierro is not a higher penalty than arresto mayor.

Hence, it falls under the jurisdiction of the court of first instance.

20. No, the contention of Ha Datu Tawahig is not correct.

The passage of the IPRA law does not suspend the application of our penal laws.

Nowhere in the IPRA does it state that courts of law are to abandon jurisdiction over criminal proceedings in favor of mechanisms applying customary laws.

Arnold Bongcayao

2020-12-07

Bobby Borces

Exam: midterm examination in criminal law december 4, 2020

Word count: 2193

Writing time: 186 minutes

Email: borcesbobby@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

No. Dela Renta's contention is not tenable. Under the law, once a crime has already been consummated, a person committing the same shall always be accountable therefor regardless of whether or not he still connected with the complaining entity or office.

In the case at bar, dela Renta allegedly committed the crime of malversation of public funds while he was still with the Philippine National Bank (PNB). Now, he contends that he can no longer be charged of such crime because he is no longer connected with the PNB but of the PDIC. Such reasoning is without merit because the alleged act was already consummated while he was still with the PNB. Regardless of whether or not he is no longer connected with the PNB, the fact remains that he already committed the alleged crime of Malversation of Public Funds while he was still with the PNB. It is up to him to show to the Sandiganbayan his innocence of the alleged crime.

Thus, Henry dela Renta's motion to dismiss should be denied for lack of merit and basis.

Under the law, there are two kinds of suspension that can be meted out against an accused. First, it is the suspension from office for the purpose of preventing the accused from harassing the witnesses against him in view of his influence inside the office or to prevent the accused from destroying the evidentiary matters against him inside the office. Second, suspension as a penalty.

In the instant case, it would seem that the suspension that the prosecution moves is the first kind of suspension, however the same is without limit because the suspension is until the case shall have been terminated or suspension pendente lite. Since, Henry dela Renta is no longer connected with the PNB which is the complaining office but he is now with the PDIC, it is submitted that there is no more basis for the Sandiganbayan to grant the motion for his suspension filed by the prosecution as the evil sought to be avoided in his suspension no longer exist in view of the absence of influence or absence of opportunity to destroy any evidence against him as he is now connected with the PDIC.

Therefore, Henry dela Renta cannot be suspended in view of the above-stated reasons.

No. Both motions are not meritorious. Under the law and jurisprudence, it is only the Ombudsman who is considered as an impeachable officer. As impeachable officer, he can only be removed from office through impeachment.

Now, in this particular case, it is a Deputy Ombudsman who was charged before the Ombudsman and the Supreme Court. Since, a Deputy Ombudsman is not considered as one of the impeachable officers under the law, then, the logical conclusion is that, Judge Rod Reyes, who is now a Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas, can now be charged in any court and eventually be removed from office if found guilty of those charges.

Therefore, his both motions are not meritorious and should be denied.

If the prosecution failed to present any receipt to substantiate the heirs' claim for an award of actual damages, the damages that the heirs can claim is the so-called temperate damages. This is a kind of damages that may be recovered when pecuniary loss has been suffered but the amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be proven with certainty. In such a case, pursuant to the prevailing jurisprudence, the amount of temperate damages that can be awarded to heirs is only in the amount of P50,000.00.

The Compromise Agreement entered into by the parties is totally null and void under the law. The Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage, Dissolution and Liquidation of Conjugal Partnership of Gains and Damages should push through as it cannot be subject for a compromise agreement. In fact, in this kind of petition, if the respondent failed to file his answer, the court shall order the Prosecution to investigate and to determine whether or not there is collusion between the parties. From this fact alone, the motion to annul the compromise agreement should be granted not on the basis that the private respondent was already found guilty in the criminal case but on the basis that compromise agreement in this particular case is prohibited. Thus, the petition should proceed and if the petition is found to be with merit then the their marriage will be annuled and since the respondent is found to be a guilty party having been convicted by the court, then he cannot get any share in the conjugal assets and by then these assets can be forfeited in favor of the private respondent.

The crime committed is estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code. It is clear that there was abuse of confidence in this case since the defendant received a finger ring for the purpose of pledging it as security for a loan. However, he broke this confidence by way of selling the same to his neighbors. Worst, instead of delivering the proceeds to the offended party, he misappropriated the money for his own personal use. Thus, pursuant to law, any person who receives a thing from another in trust for a particular purpose and misappropriate the proceeds thereof for his own use, is liable for estafa.

Material possession gives the transferee no right over the thing and his possession is merely physical possession which he can not set up against the owner; while, Juridical possession, it gives the transferee a right over the thing which the transferee may set up even against the owner of the particular thing.

The distinction is relevant in the crime of estafa, theft or qualified theft because in these crimes, only material or physcical possession over the thing was given to the transferee which he can not set up against the owner. Thus, if he misappropriates the said thing for his personal use through deceit, fraud, abuse of confidence, then such transferee may be held liable for such mentioned crimes.

If the teller of a bank appropriates the money of a depositor for his personal gain or use, the bank teller committed the crime of qualified theft because the money deposited now forms part of the bank's asset and the bank teller's possession over the money deposited is only material or physical possession and since the bank reposed on him such trust and confidence being a bank teller and took the money for his personal use or gain, then a crime of qualified theft is committed.

Under the situation given, the crime committed by A is estafa since A managed to misappropriate the share of B by lying to him. Under the law, a crime of estafa is committed when a person is being entrusted with the money, in this case, the share of B, and misappropriates the same through unfaithfulness or with abuse of confidence reposed on him by its owner. This is in all four in this case, therefore, A committed the crime of estafa.

From the foregoing narration of facts in the information given, it is submitted that the crime committed by Lina S. Velayo is Estafa. This is so because Lina S. Velayo's possession over that part of money is only material or physical possession and she is obligated to remit that to the appropriate office or agency but she failed to do so and instead appropriated the amount for her personal use or gain. She was also entrusted with such amount and so there was also abuse of confidence reposed on her, thus, under the obtaining facts, a crime of Estafa was committed by her.

This case was best illustrated in the case of a mayor who spent the local government funds for the assistance of the flood victim in his municipality. The mayor in this case has no criminal intent in doing the act as there is no wrongful purpose in his mind except to render assistance to his constituents who are in need.

10.

Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea means that a person's act cannot make him guilty without a guilty mind. This is applied in criminal cases when such alleged act is found to have been committed without any intention commiting any crime or the accused has no guilty mind in performing the complained act.

11.

On the basis of the allegations contained in the information, it is submitted that the crime committed is Malversation. Under the law, malversation is committed when the following requisites are present. 1. That he is a public officer; 2. that he is entrusted with the money; 3. that he is an accountable officer; and last 4. that he misappropriated such money or funds. These requisites are present in this case, thus, the crime committed is Malversation.

12.

Yes. The accused who is charged with intentional malversation can still be convicted of malversation by negligence because the intention or negligence is only a mode of committing malversation and also the crime of malversation necessarily includes intentional malversation and malversation by negligence.

13.

X committed the crime of direct bribery. Under the law, bribery is committed when a person accepts money or bribe for the purpose of doing or performing an act constituting a crime in connection with the performance of his duty or function. In the extant case, Mr. X, a court sheriff, agreed to perform such an act in consideration of the offer, thus allowing Y to withdraw his supposed garnished deposit. Thus, crystal clear that a crime of direct bribery was committed by X.

14.

The crime committed here is violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 or the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. This is because the allegations are such there is illegal drug trading and since there is allegation of conspiracy in such alleged act of illegal drug trading, then all of them can be charged of such violation under R.A. No. 9165 although some them may not have actually taken part of the illegal trading because in conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.

The proper tribunal that has jurisdiction is the Sandiganbayan because one of the accused is a government official whose salary grade is more than 27.

15.

Indirect bribery is committed by a government official or employee who accepts give by reason of his office, while corruption of a public official is committed by a private person who offers gift or money to a public official for the doing a particular act.

There can be attempted corruption of a public official as when public official refuses to accept a gift given by reason of his office or for a consideration of the doing of a particular act amounting to a crime. Example A, a private person, offered B, a public official, a gift for a consideration that his case will be dismissed. If B refuses to accept such gift, then attempted corruption of a public official is committed. In short, the crimes of corruption of a public official and bribery to be consummated must require the performance of both parties, otherwise the crime is only attempted.

16.

Dubio pro reo principle as applied in the case of Pp. v. Luzviminda Valdez is that in case the evidence of both the prosecution and the defense is evenly balanced, the case should be resolved in favor of the accused.

17.

(a) In applying the indeterminate sentence law in crimes punished by special laws, the maximum penalty should exceed the maximum penalty provided for in the special law and minimum penalty should not also be below the minimum penalty provided for in the special law.

(b) No, because in the indeterminate sentence law, it is required that there should be a minimum and maximum penalty. Here, the penalty imposed by the trial judge is straight penalty of imprisonment of one year which has no minimum and maximum period, hence a violation to the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

18.

The three specific acts in the crime of concubinage are as follows: a. Living in the conjugal dwelling of a woman other than the wife; b. Having sexual intercourse or relation of a woman other than the wife under scandalous circumstances. c. Cohabiting with such woman other than the wife.

19.

The court that has jurisdiction to try the concubinage charge is the Regional Trial Court because it is the law itself that considers the Regional Trial Court to have jurisdiction over the said charge of concubinage.

20.

No, the contention of Ha Datu Tawahig is not correct because being a member of tribal group or an indigenous people is not an excuse for a member of the said tribal group to be absolved of his criminal, civil and administrative liability. Under the generality principle of criminal law, all persons, regardless of his religious beliefs and tribe, are duty bound to follow our criminal laws. In the event of transgression of these laws, one could be held criminally liable. This is the principle that can be applied against Ha Datu Tawahig. Therefore, his contention is not correct.

Bobby Borces

2020-12-07

Cherrie Mae Aguila-Granada

Exam: midterm examination in criminal law december 4, 2020

Word count: 1588

Email: cherriemae.aguila@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

a) No, dela Renta's contention is not tenable.

As the law provides, malversation is committed by any public officer who appropriates public funds for his own or another person's benefit.

In this case, dela Renta was an employee of a public entity, the PNB, at the time when he manipulated certain accounts involving trust funds and time deposits. Thus, his defense that he cannot be charged with malversation since he is no longer an employee of said public institution during the filing of the case is inconsequential, and must fail.

b) He may still be suspended during the pendency of the case since at the time of the filing, he is working under the PDIC, another government entity. The law is clear that such term "public office" could refer to any public position and not necessarily the one whereby said crime was committed.

2. The motion to dismiss filed in the Office of the Ombudsman must be denied since the charged was properly filed. Under the law, the Sandiganbayan is vested with jurisdiction in cases filed against public officials. As to the motion filed in the Supreme Court, such should likewise be denied since jurisdiction of disbarment cases is vested in said Court.

3. The trial court should award temperate damages. Under the law, whenever claims of actual damages cannot be substantiated with the corresponding receipts, the court may award temperate damages for the injuries suffered by the private offended party.

4. The guilty spouse, having been convicted of adultery, can still get the share of the conjugal property.

Under the Revised Penal Code, the crime of adultery does not carry wth it civil interdiction. Thus, the guilty spouse still has the right of over his share in the conjugal property.

a) The crime committed is estafa.

As defined by law, estafa or swindling is committed when a person defrauds another by misappropriating the latter's money or goods entrusted to the former under the obligation to return or deliver such money or thing.

In this case, defendant failed to perform the obligation of pledging the ring entrusted to him by the offended party, and instead sold it and appropriated the money for her own use.

b) The law defines material possession as the physical or actual possession of a thing or personal property without having a title thereto. On the other hand, juridical possession refers to the possession of a personal property with a right or title, in addition to actual possession of the same.

In discerning whether a crime committed is theft, estafa or qualified theft, there must be classification of possession present. If the offender has material possession over a thing and misappropriates it, then theft is committed. However, if there is juridical possession of a thing and the offender subsequently misappropriates it with abuse of confidence, then estafa is committed. If there is only material possession and misappropriation but done with abuse of confidence, the crime of qualified theft is committed.

6. The crime committed is qualified theft.

Pursuant to the RPC, qualified theft is committed when (1) there is taking of personal property; (2) said property belongs to another; (3) taking is done with intent to gain; (4) it is done without the consent of the owner; (5) it is done without force or intimidation; and, (6) it is done with grave abuse of confidence.

As a bank teller, clearly, there was abuse of confidence in the taking or appropriating the depositor's money for his own use. Thus, the crime of qualified theft is committed since all other elements are present.

7. The crime committed is estafa.

The law provides that estafa is committed when a person shall defraud another by means of, among others, abuse of confidence by misappropriating money or goods received by him in trust under the obligation to deliver the same.

Being partners in a business venture is a form of fiduciary relationship where trust and confidence is present. Thus, when a partner lies to the other with the intent to gain, fraud is evident. Hence, A committed estafa when he defrauded B by lying to him and subsequently approprating the latter's share in the profits.

8. The accused committed the crime of estafa.

The law is clear that when a person shall defraud another through abuse of confidence by misappropriating money or personal property entrusted to him or on commission, under the obligation to return or deliver the same, estafa is committed. Moreover, jurisprudence states further that when money or goods is received by the offender in trust or on commission from the offended party, the former acquires both material and juridical possession of the personal property.

10. Actus non facit reum, nisi mean sit rea translates to the principle that an act is not deemed culpable unless done with intent. Stated differently, an act cannot be considered a crime if it was done without a guilty mind. This maxim is applied in criminal cases when there is a need to justify an act, thus exempting it from criminal liability. To exemplify, an act of killing a fleeing criminal by a police officer when the former fired shots at the latter is deemed a justifying circumstance that exempts the officer from criminal liability. This is so because such act was done without a criminal intent.

11. The accused committed the crime of malversation.

The RPC defines malversation as a crime committed by a public officer who, by reason of his office, appropriates, misappropriates or takes public funds or property.

In this case, since the postmaster is a public officer who misappropriated for himself the money from fees and charges collected from the post office, malversation is clearly committed.

12. Yes, an accused who is charged with intentional malversation can be convicted of malversation by negligence. As established by case law, a person charged with intentional malversation or malversation committed by dolo can be convicted with malversation committed by negligence if the facts can be proved that such act was only committed through mistake.

13. X committed the crime of direct bribery.

Under the law, direct bribery is committed when a public officer shall agree to the performance of an act constututing a crime, in connection with the performance of his official duties in consideration of any gift, offer, or promise receieved by such officer.

Based on the foregoing, X is a court sheriff who maliciously informed the bank of the false representation that the garnishment order has already been lifted in consideration of the 10,000 from Y. Hence, X committed direct bribery.

14. De Lima committed the crime of violation of section 5 of the RA 9165. Such provision penalizes the violation of the prohibited act of sale, trading, and distribution of illegal drugs. Consequently, the charges against her were filed before the RTC since such court has the exclusive and original jurisdiction in trying drug-related cases.

15. Direct bribery is committed when any public officer shall agree to perform an act constituting a crime, in connection with the performance of his official duties,in consideration of any gift, present, offer, or promise, personally or through another person.

On the other hand, indirect bribery is committed by a public officer who shall receive gifts offered to him by reason of his office.

As for corruption of public official, this crime is committed by a person who shall make offers or makes promises has given gifts to the public officers subject to the crimes of direct bribery, indirect bribery, or qualified bribery.

16. The rule of lenity, as often stated as in dubio pro reo, is a principle which translates to "when in doubt, for theaccused." In effect, such doctrine operates to favor the accused whenever there is vagueness in the circumstances which affects the ruling or judgment.

17.

a) In special laws, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence if the offense is punished by another law, the minimum shall not exceed the minimum of the latter law.

b) Supposing the judge will impose a straight penalty of imprisonment for one year, the Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply anymore. Rather, the accused will be sentenced to a determinate penalty of one year.

18. Under the RPC, concubinage may be commited when a husband shall (1) keep a mistress in the conjugal dwelling, or (2) have sexual intercourse under scandalous circumstances with a woman not his wife, or (3) cohabit with her in any other place.

To exemplify such cases, the husband commits concubinage when he shall keep a woman who is not his wife as a mistress in the family home that belongs to him and his wife. The second case contemplates upon a husband having sexual intercourse with another woman who is not his wife such as his secretary, colleaugue, or acquaintance. The third situation presupposes a husband living together with another woman in another residential place, making such their home.

19. As the law provides, concubinage is within the exclusive and original jurisdiction of he lower courts or MTC since the penalty of such crimeranges from 6 months and 1 day to 4 years.

20. No, his contention is incorrect.

In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the decision rendered by the tribal court cannot be binding nor can be persuasive to the decision of the court where the rape case was filed. Accordingly, the indigenous peoples' legal system was not established for the purpose of depriving the government from trying criminal cases committed by members of such group.

Cherrie Mae Aguila-Granada

2020-12-07

Christian Val G Dionglay

Exam: midterm examination in criminal law december 4, 2020

Word count: 1148

Writing time: 178 minutes

Email: christianval4680@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric S Bastasa

Henry Dela Renta's contention is incorrect, under the revised penal code, the requsites for the crime of Malversation of public funds are the following;

1. he is a public officer

2. he is accountable for the public funds

3. he takes or misapproriate the funds

And the period of prescription of the crime will start to run on the day the crime is discovered. And it was discovered by the offended party on 1995, therefore it has not yet prescribed. De la Renta can still be held liable.

Preventive suspension can be legally imposed to Henry Dela Renta inorder to prevent harm or injury to PDIC or his fellow employees. And also not to hamper the investigation that will be conducted for the furtherance of the litigation.

The motion to dismiss filed at the office of the Ombudsman is meritorious. Acts of lasciviousness is not under the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman, it is under the jurisdiction of the regular courts. And based on jurisprudence, it falls under the family courts.

The motion to dismiss filed with the supreme court is not meritorious. under the rules of court proceedings for disbarment can be initiated by the supreme court or Integrated Bar of the philippines or upon filing of a complaint.

3. In the Jugueta case it was held that for crimes like murder where the penalty imposed is death but is reduced to reclusion perpetua, there are three kinds of damages that can be awarded to the offended party.these are the civil, moral and exemplary damages amounting to one hundred thousand pesos.

The trial court can award civil indemnities to the offended party.

4. Although there was a valid compromise agreement between the parties excuted pending litigation, anulling it will not affect the validity of thier marriage. There was no perfected annulment of marriage nor legal separation, therefore there could be no dissolution and liquidation of conjugal partnership of gains and damages.

5. The defendant can be held liable for the crime of swindling (estafa) for misappropriating or converting the personal property received by him in trust.

b. juridical possession is when money is in the possession of a person as receiving teller of a bank. while material possession is when a person being an agent is in possession of a merchandise to be sold or its profits from the sale,

6. in a decide case it was held that when a teller of a bank misappropriates money received by him for the bank, and the possession of the teller was the possession of the bank. and the teller misapproriated it with grave abuse of confidence. he is liable of qualified theft but swindling or estafa can also apply.

7. In applying the absolutory clause under the revised penal code, persons can be exempted from criminal liability for the crime of theft, swindling or malicious mischief committed againts family members. the crime committed is swindling.

8. The crime committed is swindling (estafa) with abuse of confidence being the President of Alorasan realty development corporation. she misappropriated or converted the money she received in trust for personal use.

I think principle of Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea was applied in the given situation. the act cannot be held criminal unless the mind is criminal.

10.

It means that an act cannot be held criminal unless the mind is criminal. Intent is an essential element of an intentional felony, when an accused commits a crime in good faith, it would mean that there is no crime committed. the maxim applies only to intentional crimes.

11.

In the given situation, the accused postmaster being a public office can be held liable for the crime of malversation of public funds or property under the revised penal code. the elements of the crime are that the offender is a public officer, by reason of his duties he is accountable for the funds and that he misapproriate of such fund or property.

12.

The crime of malversation is a crime committed by means of deceit. it is an intentional crime, therefore once charged with intentional malversation, he cannot be convicted of malversation by negligence.

13.

MR X being a public officer is liable under the revised penal code for the crime of direct bribery. The elements of the crime of direct briber are the following, that the accused is a public officer, that he accepts a gift or promise and that gift or promise has been given in consideration of committing a crime or any act which does not constitute a crime or refraining from doing his official duty, and the said act is related to his function as a public officer.

14.

In the case of senator delima vs honorable judge guerrero, the senator was charge for violations of the different provision of RA 9165 or the dangerous drugs act. the court which has jurisdiction over drugs cases is the regional trial court.

15. Indirect bribery is committed when a public officer accepts gift offered to him by reason of his office. while corruption of public officials shall be imposed to the person who have offered gifts or promise to the public officer which consitute the crime of indirect bribery.

if the public officer turns down the offer then it will be attempted corruption of public official. there is no frustrated stage in bribery and corruption of public officials. if they both agree then it will be consumated.

16. In dubio pro reo means that all laws must be interpreted in favor of the accused and strictly againts the state.

17.

The Indeterminate sentence law is aplicable to special laws. The court will fix the minimun term which should not be lesser to the minimum period fixed by law, and the court will also determine the maximum term which should not be more that what is provided under the law.

No the judge is incorrect, the minimum and maximum period must be fixed. the minimun should not be less than 4 months and 1 day and the maximun should not be more than 6 years.

18.

The act of keeping a mistress in thier conjugal dwelling, having sex with other woman who is not his wife and living together with that other woman who is not his wife and not in thier conjugal dwelling. all of these elements consitute the crime of concubinage.

19.

In a decided case, it was held that the inferior case has jurisdiction over the crime of concubinage. And it is a settled rule that destierro is under the jurisdiction of inferior courts for being a light penalty than imprisonment.

20.

No, Ha Datu Tawahig is incorrect. in a decided case, with the same situation presented above, the accused was held liable for the crime of rape. The courts will not tolerate tribal practices which is violative to our existing laws.

Christian Val G Dionglay

2020-12-07

cyrus tingcang

Exam: midterm examination in criminal law december 4, 2020

Word count: 1574

Writing time: 171 minutes

Email: cyrust2011@gmail.com

Class: 4th year Juris Doctor

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

A. It is respectfully submitted that the contention of dela Renta is untenable. Case law dictates that mere resignation from the office where the accused perpetrated the crime of Malversation of Public Funds does not bar the prosecution of the said crime. At bar, it is clear that dela Renta is a public officer who had custody of public funds by reason of the duties of his position with the PNB. Perforce, he can still be charge with the subject crime.

B. The suspension of an accused public officer pendente lite is legally allowed under the law as long as the accused is still occupying a position in a public office. This is so to prevent him from committing further malfeasance in public service. However, it is necessary that there be a prior finding by the court that the accused is prosecuted based on a valid complaint or information.

2. The motion to dismiss the complaint for acts of lasciviousness is meritorious. Under the prevailing laws and juriprudence, the Office of the Ombudsman is vested with the authority to prosecute crimes committed by public officers in relation to the discharge of their official functions. In the case at hand, the crime of acts of lasciviousness is considered a common crime committed not in the performance of an official function and thus the same should be prosecuted by the Office of the Public Prosecutor having jurisdiction over the place of the crime. Anent the case of disbarment, the motion filed by the accused should be denied for lack of merit. It is settled that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to try cases of disbarment and in the exercise of this power, the High Court may direct a lower court or the Office of the Supreme Court Administrator to investigate and submit its report and recommendation on the subject case.

3. Prevailing jurisprudence is instructive that whenever it cannot be determined the actual damages on account of the failure to present receipts to substantiate a particular claim for damages, the Court may grant temperate damages provided that the same is pegged at its fair and reasonablen value taking intoi account the factual circumstances of a given case.

4. The examinee rules in favor of petitioner. Here, respondent cannot be allowed to benefit from her own wrongdoing. A contrary ruling would result grave injustice.

A. The crime committed is Estafa under Article 315 considering the there the fraud committed by Defendant is by abuse of confidence. Here, there is clearly an obligation on the part of the Defendant to deliver the ring to a pledgee to carry out the intention of the offended party. However, he misappropriated the ring and unlawfully sold to one of his neighbors and in the process causing damage to the offended party.

B. Material possession means that the thing in custody is merely being held for the benefit of another person and passes no legal authority or ownership to the possessor. This is differentiated from juridical possesion which means that the person is possessing the thing with a legal title which he can set up even against the owner of the same. Relevantly, if the accused had material possession of the object subject of asportation, he can be convicted of Theft. On the other hand, if it is a case of juridical possession, then the accused can be convicted of Estafa under Article 315 of the RPC.

6. The Examinee humbly submits that the teller in question may be convicted of the crime of Theft inasmuch as he is merely an employee of the bank and thus he only ahs material possession which means that the money in his custody is merely being held for the benefit of the bank and passes he acquired no legal authority or ownership over the said money.

7. The crime committed is Estafa under Article 315 considering the there the fraud committed by A was by abuse of confidence and the same caused damage to B.

8. The crime committed is Estafa under Article 315 considering the there the fraud committed by Lina Velayo was by abuse of confidence and the same caused damage to WJA Holdings.

9. The principale stated in question was illustrated in the famous case of Tabuena vs. Sandiganbayan. It can be recalled that the accused in that case was the Manager of the Manila International Airport who was ordered by former President Marcos to pay another government agency a big sum of public funds which is sourced from the account of MIAA and which accused Tabuena withdrawn in compliance to the order of the President. Significantly, President's order was made through a Memorandum issued by the Office of the President. Hence, accused Tabuena interposed a defence of good faith claiming that he was merely following the order of the President. The Supreme Court in that case favorably ruled in favor of the acquittal of the accused and ratiocinated, among others, that the charge of conspiracy is wanting.

10. An act does not make an accused guilty without a guilty mind. It is the consistent ruling of the Supreme Court that for there to be a valid conviction of an accused, it must be shown beyond reasonable doubt that the accused harbored criminal intent. Failure in this regard, would result to the acquittal of the accused.

11. It is respectfully submitted that the crime committed was Malversation of Public Funds considering that the accused is a publilc officer and the public funds that he misaapropriated was under his custody by reason of his position as a postmaster.

12. Yes. It is settled that an accused my be convicted malversation by Negligence if the same was proven after the trial instead of the charge of intentional malversation. Verily, the former being lesser offense is deemed included in the latter being a grave offense.

13. It is submitted that the crime committed is Direct Bribery. The elements constitutive of the said crime is evident in the narration of facts namely; Accused X is a public officer, he recieved the sum of P10,000.00 from Y; the acceptance of the said sum of money was in consideration of his unlawful act of defying a lawful order of the court to garnish the bank account of Y and the said criminal act of X caused damaged to the government as the garnished money is considered in custody of the court.

14. It is respectfully submitted that Crimes committed are the violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act considering that Accused De lima being the Secretary of Justice caused the giving of undue benefit to the high profile inmates causing prejudice to the goevrnment and violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 considering that the accuseds were involved illegal sale, transactions and trading of illegal drugs. Perforce, as one of the accuseds is a Secretary of the Department of Justice, the crminal informations for the said crimes should be filed with the Sandiganbayan it being a special criminal court having juridiction over the accuseds.

15. Direct bribery is distinguished from indirect bribery in the sense that a mere offer or promise to give a gift in consideration of the public officer's malfeasance is enough to have a conviction in the former. In the latter crime, it is necessary that the public offiecr accepted the gift. Anent the crime of Corriuption of a Public Official, the offender made an offer which would make the public officer guilty in the crime of direct bribery but the said officer did agree to the crime.

16 The trial court is always guided by the principle of in dubio pro reo which means that whenever there is doubt in the apprecaition of the evidence presented by the prosecution and the accused, that interpretation which would result to a lesser criminal liability on the part of the accused should be upheld.

17.

A. Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the divisible penalties as prescribed in the special penal law should be applied in its proper degree taking into account the aggravating or mitigating circumstances if present in a given case. At bar, since the accused pleaded guilty during his arraignment, the same shall be taken as a mitigating circumstance which means that the penalty lower in degree shall be imposed agaisnt him.

B. The penalty is incorrect. This is so because the special penal law in question provides for a divisible penalty. Hence, it behooves upon the trial court to impose the proper penalty as provided by the subject law. A contrary ruling would render nugatory the express provisions of the law.

18.

19. It is the Regionnal Trial Court that has jurisdiction to try the crimes charged against the accuseds. Case law dictates that the crime of the concubine is deemed included in the crime of concubinage against the husband. Otherwise, it would result to an absurd situation that a sigle crime is being tried by two trial courts and which could render conflicting decisions.

20. No. The Indigenous Peoples Rights Protection Act was never intended to afford members of the tribal communities a blanket impunity in the application of the criminal laws of the country. Moreover, a Petition for Mandamus can not lie to compel them performance of discretionary duties. Here, what is being sought enjoined in the subject petition is for the respondents to acquit the accused from the crminal case which is legally not permissible.

cyrus tingcang

2020-12-07

Dexter Kim Patron

Exam: midterm examination in criminal law december 4, 2020

Word count: 1274

Writing time: 198 minutes

Email: dpatron200517@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

1. The Sandiganbayan has an exclusive jurisdiction over private individual employed in the Government owned and controlled corporation although he is not connected at present with such entity but the felony was committed during his employement. His contention is not tenable.

He can be suspended because as a rule once there is a valid information and the accused is charged with corruption against the government then it would be automatic that suspension pendente lite will be issued by the Sandiganbayan.

2. NO,

Cases falling under the Ombudsman are those complaint charging any public officer or employee including those in the government owned and controlled corporations, with an act or omission alleged to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. Such a complaiint mayu be teh subject of criminal or administrative proceedings or both. therefore his motion is not meritorious. The complaint for disbarment is also within the jurisdiction of teh Supreme Court thus his motion to dismiss is still not meritorious.

3. The court may award nominal damages which shall not require receipts since the court acknowledged the loss. It shall award P25,000.00.

4. It should not be forfeited as it would be unjust to the guilty spouse taking all the property of the family to benefit the innoscent spouse. The Civil law even provide that separation of property may be effected voluntarily or for sufficient cause, subject to judicial approval. The volutary separation of property is subject to teh rights of all creditors of teh conjugal partnership of gains and other persons with pecuniary interest.

5. a) The crime committed is Estafa as when the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence and that damage capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party.

b) Material Possession means any property or belonging that are tangible or owning tangible things while Juridical Possession means a possession which gives teh transferee a right over the things which the transferee may set up even against the owner.

6) The crime committed is theft since the bank teller has no juridical possession of the money received from the depositor. Surely the teller took the money which belongs now to the bank, with the intention to gain and such taking is without the consent of teh owner-bank.

7. A comitted estafa as A defrauded B by abused of confidence and there is damaged done capable of pecuniary estimatioin caused to B. However if bothe are living together, A cannot be convicted since the criminal states that no criminal liability but only civil liabity shall result from teh commission of teh crime of theft, swindling (estafa) or malicious mischief committed or caused mutually by borthers or sisters if living together.

8. Estafa with abuse of confidence since the accused were able to get hold of the money through her representation that she will remit the money to the BIR thus she has now the juridical possession.

It is well settled that when the money, goods or any personal property is received by the offender from teh offended party in trust or on commission or for administration, the offender acquires both the material and juridical possession of the thing.

Under the criminal law, the elements of estafa is that i) the money be received by teh offender with the obligation involving teh duty to make delivery of.

ii) that there be misappropriation on his part of such receipt,

iii)such misappropriation is to the prejudice of another,

iv)there is demand to the offender by the offended party.

Ms. Velayo committed estafa.

9. The Chief local executive contracted his friend to supply machineries and it paid teh said amount not knowing that the supplier has been sued to violation of the patent law. ....

10. Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea means that a crime is not committed if in teh mind of the person performing the act complained of is innoscent. accordingly if a person takes personal porperty of another believing it to be his own, the presumption of intent to gain is rebutted and therefore he is not guilty of theft.

11. There was malversation of public funds as steh elements of the crime states that:

i) the offender is a public officer

ii) he had custody or control of teh funds

iii) those funds are public funds

iv) he appropriated , took , misappropriated such.

In the instant case all are present, therefore the case would be marlversation of public funds.

12. Yes since the elements of malversation by negligence is included in the offense charged intentional malversation.

13. X committed direct bribery as provided by the criminal law that by accepting a gift iin consideration of teh execution of an act which does not constitute a crime, in connection with the performance of his official duty.

14. De Lima is liable under the anti- graft and corrupt practices act together with Ragas and Dayan.

15. a)Direct bribery is when the offender is a public officer, accepts a promise or offer or receives gifts with a view of committing some crime oor or consideration of teh execution of an act which does not constitute a crime but must be unjust while Indirect Bribery is when the offender is a public officer who accepts gifts by reason of his office and the corruption of public Official the offender is the giver or promissor of the Public Officer.

b) Yes there is such crime as attempted corruption of public officials. An example would be the accused requested teh police officer to return the stolen goods confiscated by the officer in return teh accused will give some amount. and on the day that the officer will return teh stolen goods the accused gave the promised amount but the officer arrested such accused for corruption of Public Officer.

16." in dubio pro reo" means that defendant may not be convicted by the court when doubts about his guilt remains.

17. a) If the offender is punished by any other law, the court shall sentence the accused to an ISL the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same.

b) No it is not correct since ISL imposes maximum and minimum penalty.

18. Articcle 344 provides that the husband committed the following acts:

i)who shall keep a mistress in the conjugal dwelling- means that the mistress is brought and allowed to stay in the conjugal home of the couple.

ii) having sexual intercourse under scandalous circumstances with a woman other than his wife.

iii)cohabiting with her in any other place.

19. As held by the Supreme court the concubinage case will be heard by the lower court(MTC, MCTC, MetTC) and not the RTC. it was very well explained by jurisprudence that destiero is not higher than aresto mayor although it may require longer period of time but such is not heavier than being curtailed by your freedom under the prison cell.

20. NO, the contention is wrong.

The capacity to prosecute and punish crimes is an attribute of the State's police power and is inherent as a sovereign power charged by the common will of the members of the society.

It was not the intent of the Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act to facilitate such miscarriage of justice. Customary laws cannot work to undermine penal statutes designed to address offenses.

The offender should be punished according to the criminal law that we implement and should not be allowed to escape and be shielded by their own law as we all share on the same country so must we share the same criminal law.

Dexter Kim Patron

2020-12-07

EDUARDO LUAYON

Exam: midterm examination in criminal law december 4, 2020

Word count: 945

Writing time: 188 minutes

Email: emanlu1962@yahoo.com

Class: IV

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

1. De la Rentas contention is not tenable. The fact that he was a public officer when the crime was committed and an employee of PNB would make him accountable for the said funds. He had control and custody of the funds and misappropriates the same- as such he is liable for malversation of public funds.

He should be suspended to prevent undue influence on the outcome of on-going litigation.

3. Generally if receipts are available to substantiate the heirs claim then it could be computed or summed up to constitute the Actual Damages that may be imposed. In the absence of receipts, then compensatory damages may be imposed.

6. With the given facts, we could conclude that the teller took money from the bank whom he/she was entrusted by reason of his/her duty as teller/employee of the bank. He/she took the money without the consent of higher ups and apparently for personal gain. Thereafter he/she appropriated the money which belongs to the depositors. Hence we could conclude that he/she committed the crime of estafa.

9. The principle illustrated

10. The latin maxim means that an act does not make a defendant guilty without a guilty mind. That the act itself does not constitute guilt unless done with criminal intent. An accused in a criminal case is deemed not guilty if criminal intent is not proven.

11. Based on the information as charged, the crime allegedly committed by the PostMaster is Malversation of Public Funds. The PostMaster being a Public Officer is accountable for the funds generated by his office which he has control and custody of. These funds generated are public funds which he took willfully, unlawfully and feloniously and with grave abuse of confidence, then misappropriated the same for his personal gain thereby damaging and prejudicing the public interest hence he could be charged XMalversation of Public Funds.

12. Yes an accused being charged with intentional malversation in the information but can be convicted of malversation by negligence. Malversation could be committed either intentionally or by negligence. There would be variance in the mode charged in the information and the mode proved after the trial but the same offense of malversation is involved.

13. X the court sheriff committed the crime of Direct Bribery. X (the offender here),is a Public Officer, who accepted the offer of Y to help the latter with his garnished account at PNB for 10000 pesos. After lifting the garnishment order Y was able to withdraw his money and thereafter he gave X the 10000 pesos. These completed the elements of Direct Bribery.

14. The crime committed is Illegal Drug Trade, Violation of Dangerous Drugs Act; Direct Bribery; this is under the jurisdiction of Regional Trial Court. The group of De Lima and Ragos as well as Dayan are considered public officers and wields power and influence over the inmates of NBP. The group allegedly extorted money from the inmates in exchange for their (inmates/drug lords ) continued drug operations while at NBP. These constitutes the elements of Direct Bribery as well as the violations of Dangerous drugs act.

15. Both direct and indirect bribery involve public officers who accept gifts, presents or offers or promise from someone. In direct bribery, there's a sort of aggreement between the public officer and the giver of the gift etc., and subsequently the former doing an act which could be criminal or otherwise while in indirect bribery, the public officer just accepts the gift,present or offer without committing himself to do an act which could be criminal or otherwise.

16. in dubio pro reo means that when doubt about the defendant's guilt remain, the defendant may not be convicted by the court. This principle of in dubio pro reo was applied in relation to the rule of lenity in the case of Pp v. Valdez. In here, Valdes applied for bail which was granted as a matter of right. The Court reiterated that penal statutes are construed strictly against the State and liberally in favor of the accused and when there's doubt in the interpretation of criminal laws, all must be resolved in favor of the accused.

17. The indeterminate sentence law is applied to offenses whose penalties are divisible into periods such as reclusion temporal, prision correcional and prision mayor. Those offenses with corresponding penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, we could not apply the Indeterminate Sentence Law for its not divisible.

18. 3 specifics act of a husband in concubinage

a) the husband keeps his mistress in the conjugal dwelling

b) He has sexual intercouse with a woman not his wife

C) He cohabited with his mistress in any other place.

19.

One important factor considered in the allocation of jurisdiction between RTC and the lower courts is the gravity of both the offense and the imposable penalty; thus the legislature granted the RTC jurisdiction over crimes whose penalties are hasher than those vested in the lower or inferior courts. The fact that destierro is a lighter penalty than imprisonment, therefore jurisdiction over crimes punishable with destierro is vested with the inferior courts.

20. The contention of Ha Datu Tawahig is not correct. The IP's tribal court could not absolved Sumatra of any wrongdoing he had committed by the issuance of a mere resolution freeing the petitioner from liability of a crime of rape. The IPRA law could not be made a shield for Sumatra's culpability, particularly it does not compel courts of law to desist from taking cognizance of criminal cases involving Sumatra or other indigenous peoples. Hence, mandamus will not lie in this particular case.

EDUARDO LUAYON

2020-12-07

ferdinand solas

Exam: midterm examination in criminal law december 4, 2020

Word count: 1522

Writing time: 178 minutes

Email: ferdinandsolas55@gmail.com

Class: criminal law

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

De la Renta's contention is untenable.

To sustain a criminal conviction for the crime of malversation, all the following elements must be present: 1. that the officer is a public officer; 2. he has custody and control of funds or property by reason of his office; 3. that those funds or properties were public for which he is accountable; 4. that he appropriated, took, misappropriated, consented or through abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to take them.

In the present case, all the elements for the crime were proven, as Regional Bank Auditor, he is an accountable officer, responsible for all government funds within his jurisdiction.

His contention that he is no longer an employee is of no moment. Well settled is the rule that the state is not subject to laches, and as a consequence, the state has all the right to charge him for the crime he committed while in office. Besides, PNB and PDIC are both government agencies, for these, his of being a government employee continues, regardless of the fact that he tranferred from one to the other.

Thus, De la Renta's contention must fail.

De la Renta may still be suspended.

The reasons behind suspension, among others, are in order to avoid white wash, obstruction of evidence or intimidation of witnesses. Besides, suspension is not a penalty, but provided by law to ensure fair and orderly investigation, and to fascilitate the attainment of justice.

For these reasons, De la Renta may still be suspended.

No, only one motion is meritorious.

Acts of lasciviousness shall be filed with proper lower courts based on hierarchy of courts. On one hand, disbarment may be filed to the Supreme Court, motu propio, or by the IBP. THus, only the complaint for acts of laciviousness where he filed a motion to dismiss is meritorious.

Temperate damages may be awarded in lieu of actual damages.

Under the RPC and existing jurisprudence, temperate damages may be recovered when some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.

Aside from temperate, moral and exemplary damages may also be recovered.

Temperate damagesis in the amount of 50 thousand while moral as well as exemplary damages is 100 thousand.

Compromise agreement is the law between the parties and is entitled to great respect.

As such, the parties must comply what has been agreed upon, to rule otherwise, would result to a mockery of justice.

Estafa with abuse of confidence.

Under the RPC, when the money, goods or any other personal property is received by the offender from the offended party (1) in trust, or on (2) commission or for (3) administration, the offender acquires both the material and juridical possession of the thing received.

Here, the accused had juridical possession of the ring since the offended party entrusted the ring to him for the purpose of pledging it as a security but instead sold the ring and appropriated the proceed for her own use.

Thus, the crime committed is estafa with abuse of confidence.

In delivering personal property to the offender , the latter might have acquied the material possession alone, or both the material and juridical possession, or those two plus ownership.

Where only material possessionis tranffered, conversion gives rise to the crime of thief; where both material and juridical possession are transferred , misappropriation would constitute estafa.

The teller of a bank who appropriates the money of a depositor for personal gain committed rthe crime of thief.

In the case of Benabaye v. People, it was held that a sum of money received by an employee on behalf of the employer is considered to be only in the material possession of the employee.

In the case, a teller who receives money from a depositor, received it on begalf of the bank, thus the crime committed is thief, qualified or otherwise.

A committed no crime due to absolutory cause.

The RPC provides that in the crime of thief, malicious mischief and swindling, relationship is an absolutory cause. Here, the act committed is a crime of thief or swindling but due to public policy, there is no penalty imposed.

The crime committed in the information is estafa.

In the case of Velayo v. People which is virtually the same with the given case, the Suprem Court held, that when money is received by the offender in trust, on commission or for administration, the offender acquires both material or physical possession and juridical possesion of the thing received. Jurical possession means possession which gives the tranferee a right over a thing, which the transferre may set up even against the owner.

Here, the accused had juridical possession over the amount, Wja fullyrelied on her assurance that shecould withdraw and remit the funds to the BIR. Clearly, a trust relationship exist between the offender and the offended party was established, the latter offered to remit the funds to the BIR.

Hence, the crime in the information is estafa.

The principle was applied in the case of Tabuena v. Sandiganbayan, wherein the accused was instructed by then President Ferdinand Marcos to pay directly to the Office of the President the debt of an agency. As result, Tabueana was charged with malversation.

The High Court acquitted Tabuena on the ground that the latter acted only in strict compliance with the Marcos memorandum. Although Tabuena may not have raised the issue as an error, the Court applied the settled doctrine that appeal throws the whole case to review. For these, it is the duty of the court to correct errors, whether such errors were assigned or unassigned.

10.

Mens rea is the element of a person mind to commit a crime.

The maxim was applied in resolving the case in the sense that since Tabuena has no criminal intent but merely following the order of the President, he is entitled for an acquittal. Freedom, intelligence and intent must be present, absence of any or one will lead to reasonable doubt.

11.

The crime committed is malversation.

The accused as a postmaster general is a public officer, he has in his custody by reason of his office, public funds and property,in the way of fees, charges and stamps, of which he is accountable. He appropriated, took, misappropriated said funds for his own use. As the facts stated, the crime alledgedly committed is malversation.

12.

Yes, by consenting or through abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to take the funds or properties belonging to the public.

13.

The crime committed is Direct Bribery.

X, as sheriff is a public officer, who accepted an offer from Y and subsequently received the amount of 10,000 pesos to refrain from doing something which the law or his office required him to do, which in this case was the garnishment of Y's bank deposit. Informing the bank that the order of garnishment has already been lifted, the same act is connected with the performance of his official duties.

Thus, the crim committed is direct bribery.

14.

The crime commited is direct bribery. The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the case, since Secretary De Lima is a Public Officer. Sandiganbayan shall have jurisdiction over crimes committed by public official in relation to their office even if these happens to be drug related cases.

15.

16.

When in doubt, rule for the accused.

This principle was applied in the Pp. v Valdez, since in this case, the prosecution failed to rely on the strenght of its own evidence, but instead rely on the wekaness of the defense evidence, leading to reasobnable doubt.

This is in consonance with the constitutional guarantee that the accused shall be presumed innocent unless and until his guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt.

17.

If the offense is punished by any other law, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by law, and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the special law.

The IDL will not apply, and hence therse is no need to fix the minimum penalty, because the IDL will not apply where the penalty does not exceed 1 year.

18.

To constitute concubinage the offender must keep a mistress in the conjugal dwelling,meaning in the conjugal abode of the legitimate spouses, shall have sexual intercourse with her under scandalous circumstances,meaning there is public display or flaunting of the illicit relationship., to cohabit with her in any other place or to live as husband and wife.

19.

Inferior Courts,has the jurisdiction to try concubinage charge.

Inferior Court has jurisdiction to try cases the penalty of which does not exceed 4 years and two months.

Considering that destierro is not really a penalty, what is controlling is the penalty imposed to the husband which unquestionably within the jurisdiction of the inferior courts.

20.

The contention Datu Tawahig is incorrect. Cases of indigenous members of the community is still within the jurisdiction of the competent court. Hence, the mandamus prayed by the accused is misplaced.

ferdinand solas

2020-12-07

Florencio Saministrado Jr.

Exam: midterm examination in criminal law december 4, 2020

Word count: 1113

Writing time: 175 minutes

Email: saministradojrflorencio@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

1. Failure of accountable officer to reder account is the misappropriation of the money of which a public officer is accountable. In the case at bar, Henry was then a regional bank auditor of PNB, hence he is an accountable officer, as such he has under his custody the trust fund and time deposits of depositors for which he accountable therefore he is liable for malversation notwithstanding that he is no longer an employee of PNB since the crime had not yet prescribe. His contention is not tenable

Henry may be suspended because PDIC is the same, a government agency for the law provides that a government employee may be suspended for crimes committed while still in the service to avoid any influence he may have against the witnesses, hence he may be suspended

2. The motions of Judge Rod Reyes may be correct because the constitution provides that it is the Supreme Court which has jurisdiction when it comes to judges and court employees, but it does not preclude the ombudsman from the investigating the same since they had jurisdiction over the person of the accused since he is a judge, and after such investigation should they find probable cause that he inded committed the crime they to turn over their recommendation to the Supreme Court which has jurisdiction over his person and office.

3 The court may award to the heirs of the victim should it be proven that homicide is committed, the damages for moral damages for P100,000, temperate damages of P50,000 for burial expenses since no documents presented for actual damages and an exemplary damages of P100, 000.

4. The act of the husband in having a compromise agreement with his wife knowing fully the act committed against him, then he is estop and can not annul the compromise agreement, he is bound by it, despite the conviction of the wife from adultery which should have forfeited his share.

a. The crime committed is estafa by misappropriating the personal property he received from the offender in trusted to him. In this case the defendant received the ring in order to secure a loan in favor of the offended party and the defendant misappropriated the same to his personal used thus he is liable for estafa.

b. In the crime of estafa juridical possession of the property is essential because the defendant has a right over the thing and the defendant misappropriated the thing to his personal gain, while in theft or qualified theft possession of the thing itself must be in the hands of the defendant in order for him to be convicted for such crime.

6. The crime committed is qualified theft since a bank teller has material possession of the money deposited and appropriate it for his personal gain, since a bank is imbued with trust and confidence thus they must exercise extraordinary deligence of the money of its depositor.

7. The crime committed is estafa since A had juridical possession of the property, since he does not have physical possession of the share of B, what was transferred are only rights.

8. The crime committed is estafa through false pretense since the accused defrauded WJA by pretending to cause the transfer of the property when in truth defendant appropriated the money to her own benefit and use.

9.Good faith and lack of criminal intent is and element of the crime of malversation, thus his good faith and lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong, the accused is civilly liable.

10. it means that a crime is not committed if in the mind of the accused who performed the criminal act he is innocent .

11. The crime committed is malversation since he is an accountable officer and he appropriated the funds to his personal use and benefit.

12. Intentional malversation presupposes that the accused plan and had the intention to malvers the fund in his possession while malversation by negligence the accused had no intention to malvers the fund, hence an accused charge with intentional malversation can not be convicted of malversation by negligence.

13. Mr. X committed is direct bribery since the crime committed is by reason of the performance of his official duty or function, as in the case at bar, by Mr. X accepting the bribe in liue of non performance of his duty as sheriff.

14. The crime committed is indirect bribery since the bribe was given by reason of her office as DOJ secretary having supervision of the New Bilibid Prison, and it is the sandigan bayan which has jurisdiction of the crime since it is committed by a public official occupying a position with salary grade 27 or higher.

15. Direct bribery is committed if the bribe is given by reason of the performance of his duty while indirect bribery is committed if the bribe is given by reason of his office. There is a crime of attempted corruption of a public official, if the said official, did not received the money or bribe and return the same.

16. It means that an accused cannot be convicted for the crime he committed should the court had doubt with his guilt.

17.

a. In the indeteminate sentence law the attendant circumstances shall be considered in determining the maximum term of penalty that will be imposed on the accused. In special law should it provide for a maximum and minimun penalty imposable then the accused shall suffer the maximum penalty or minimum penalty provided therein depending upon the circumstances of the case.

b. No the judge is not correct, because he should impose the penalty as provided for in the law, dependent upon the circumstances present in the case at bar.

18. The 3 circumstances are,that the husband keep the mistress in the conjugal dwelling, tha he had sexual intercourse with the women under a scandalous manner or cohabit with her in any other place. Any of this act committed by the husband he is laible for concubinage.

19. It is the inferior court which has jurisdiction over the case of concubinage since the prision correctional which is the penalty for the husband occupy a higher rank in the scale of penalty than destiero which is the penalty for the mistress.

20. His contention is not correct, because penal laws are binding to all who live or sojourn in the country thus he is not exempt from criminal liability. Moreover the penal laws is applicable to all crimes committed in this country, therefor the decision of Dadantulan Tribal Court is not valid because it has no jurisdiction over the person of the accused and of the crime he committed.

Florencio Saministrado Jr.

2020-12-07

Frilin Lomosad

Exam: midterm examination in criminal law december 4, 2020

Word count: 1605

Writing time: 182 minutes

Email: lomosadfrilinm@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

No, the contention of dela Renta is untenable. Malversation of of public funds can still be enforced against him despite his being no longer an employee of the Philippine National Bank.

Yes, he may still be suspended pendente lite. The case filed against him is malversation of funds to which his integrity as an accountant is greatly affected. As a public official, the trust and confidence given to him is now in question.

No, both motions of the deputy ombudsman is not correct. Being a Deputy ombudsman, he is not among those impeacheable officials of the Philippines. The list as provided in the constitution is exclusive and he is not included therein. Hence, being not an impeachable official, he is within the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman and Supreme Court.

In a case Homicide actual damages is no longer necessary to award the following damages: Civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000, moral damages of P50,000 and temperate damages of P50,000 when no actual receipts can be presented for the wake and burial expenses.

No, the allegations and contentions of the petitioner is not correct. As a rule, conviction by the other spouse of the crime of adultery does not bar her from claiming her share of the conjugal assets.

In addition the compromise agreement previously executed by the parties voluntarily cannot be annulled on the mere ground that the private respondent is previously convicted of the crime of adultery.

5 - A.

The crime committed by the defendant is estafa. The defendant acquired possession over the ring as a pledge for the loan of P5.00. Defendant`s possession of the ring is a kind of juridical possession as he has the right to set up against the owner until the loan is fully paid.

5-B.

Material possesion is present when the possessor merely possess the physical possession of the thing not as an owner thereof. While Juridical possession is present when the possession gives the transferee a right over the thing which he cant set up against the owner thereof. It is important to know the relevance the same because the crime that would be charged over the accused would depend upon the nature of possession.

The bank teller shall be liable for the crime of Qualified Theft. As a bank teller, he had only a physical possession of the money received by him which must be deposited to the bank. It is considered as qualified because as a teller, he have been given the confidence to properly deposit the same. Thus he committed the same with grave abuse of confidence.

A committed the crime of estafa. As a rule estafa is committed when the accused will defraud another by means of deceit and that there is abuse of confidence. In the case at bar, A, as a business partner is given the confidence that he would not misappropriate the money of the partnership.

The crime committed in the case is estafa. Velayo defrauded and deceived WJA Holdings by representing herself as the President of Alorasa Realty Development Corporation. She acquired possession over the money which must supposedly remitted to the BIR. Having acquired possession over the money through deceipt and with grave abuse of confidence, she then committed the crime of estafa.

This is the case of an LGU and its accountants and treasurer, wherein a specific order was given to them to pay a certain benefit to its employees. However, it turn out that such order was invalid making such payment illegal. In such case, the LGU believes in good faith that the order is valid and the payment is within the limits of such order. Thus, the Supreme Court did not made them liable in the case.

10.

Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea means that an act is not necessarily a guilty act unless the accused has the necessary state of mind required for that offense to be committed. It means that criminal intent is necessary to make a person guilty of the crime. In criminal case involving crimes which are considered mala in se, criminal intent is an indispensabl element. Hence, absent such criminal intent the accused would be acquitted.

11.

The crime committed is malversation of funds. The crime of malversation is committed when the following elements are present: (1) that the offender is a public officer; (2) that he had custody of funds or property; (3) that those funds or property is a public fund or property which he is accountable; and (4) that he appropriated it, took, misappropriated the same funds. In the case at bar, all the elements are present.

12.

Yes, an accused charged with intentional malversation can be convicted of malversation by negligence. As a rule, malversation can be committed either through a positive act of misappropriation of public funds or by negligence by allowing another to commit the same. As long as all the elements of malversation are present he can be convicted of malversation. Even if the mode charged is different from the mode that is proved by the evidence, still the crime of malversation is committed.

13.

X committed the crime of direct bribery. As a rule, the elements of direct bribery are the following : (1) the offender is a public officer; (2) the offender accepts a gift or a promise from another; (3) such promise or gift is given for the offender to commit a crime; and (4) the act committed by the offender is related to his official duties and he executes the same. The crime of direct bribery is committed upon the receipt of X of the amount of P10,000 to help Y with his garnished account and subsequently help do what is asked by Y which he is not supposed to.

14.

The crime committed in the case is Illegal Drug Trading under the Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2002. It is the Regional Trial Court which has jurisdiction over the case. What is really the crime committed in the case at bar is illegal trading and not direct bribery. Direct bribery in the case is merely incidental to the main crime that has been committed. Hence, it is the Regional Trial Court which has original jurisdiction over the case and not the Supreme Court.

15.

Bribery is committed when the public officer received or about to receive a gift or promise in consideration for an act or ommission in favor to the giver which is related to official duties of the official. Such could be either direct or indirect. It is direct when there is an agreement between the public officer and the giver of the gift or promise. While in indirect bribery, such agreement is not present. Corruption of public official is committed when a private individual gives or offer a public officer a present to have favor from the latter.

Yes, an attempted corruption of a public official may be committed. It is present when upon the offer of the pivate individual to give something or a present to the public official, the latter refused such an offer.

16.

As discussed in the case of People vs Luzviminda, the principle of in dubio pro reo is applied when a court is faced with two possible interpretations of a law or a penal statue. One of the interpretations would be favorable to the accused, while the other would be not. Under this principle, what must be adopted is the one that is more favorable or lenient to that of the accused.

17-A.

The indeterminate Sentence law is applied in crimes punished by special penal laws by sentencing the accused to indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum as fixed by such law and the minimum shall not also be less than the minimum term as prescribed by the same special law.

17-B.

Ye, the straight penalty of the judge of imprisonment for one year is correct. The minimum period as provided in the law is six months and one day to two years and four months. Hence, imposing a straight penalty of 1 year is valid.

18.

The three specific acts of concubinage by a husband are the following:

a. By having a sexual intercourse under a scandalous manner or situations with a woman other than his wife - in this case the husband must make such sexual intercourse in a circumstance which is scandalous in nature; the mere having sexual intercourse with other woman would not immediately make him liable of concubinage.

b. By keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling - thus, when the husband keeps a mistress in an apartment or another property other than the dwelling, then it would not be a crime of concubinage.

c. By cohabiting with a woman other than his wife in any other place - this is committed when the husband actually lives with the mistress.

19.

It is the inferior courts which has jurisdiction to try the concubinage charge. It is absurd for the legislature to give jurisdiction to the inferior courts to try the charge of concubinage against the husband and not against the concubine. It has already been clarified by the Supreme Court that the crime of concubinge is within the jurisdiction of the inferior courts.

20.

No, the contention of Ha Datu Tawahig is not correct. Petioner herein does not derive any right from the Dadantuhan Tribal Court to be spared from his criminal liability. Such court is not recognized by the Supreme Court and whatever ruling it may pronounce is not controlling to our public prosecutors.

Frilin Lomosad

2020-12-07

Immanuel Granada

Exam: midterm examination in criminal law december 4, 2020

Word count: 1486

Email: Giwu8686@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

(a) No, Dela Renta's contention is untenable.

It is settled in jurisprudence that a public officer may still be prosecuted for malversation despite he has ceased to be an employee.

In this instance, de la Renta is a Regional Bank Auditor of a then government banking institution, Philippine National Bank. He is no doubt a public officer.

Thus, dela Renta's contention that he could no longer be charged of malversation by reason of cessation of his employment stands on faulty assumptions.

(b) Dela Renta may be suspended.

It has been made clear by the Supreme Court that the term "office" referred to therein under the law prescribing suspension pendente lite against a public officer applies to "any office" to which the said charged public officer is currently sitting and not limited to the office with which he is charged.

Here, although dela Renta is now currently holding an office in PDIC, still he may be suspended by virtue of the above rule.

No, the motions are bereft of merit.

The Court has held that it is only the Ombudsman, not the Deputy, is an impeachable officer. Thus, the Deputy may be charged criminally during his incumbency without need of prior impeachment. Consequently, therefore, the Office of the Ombudsman has jurisdiction over Judge Rod Reyes in a complaint of acts of lasciviousness filed against him for being a public officer.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court also has jurisdiction over the petition for disbarment filed against the judge since he is a member of the bar over whom the Court has jurisdiction.

The trial court may award the heirs of temperate damages in the amount of P25,000. Jurisprudence instructs that temperate damages is awarded in homicide when no sufficient proof of actual damages is offered.

Private respondent may still get his share.

Under settled jurisprudence, a compromise agreement merely divides the properties partially.

(a) The crime committed is theft. Theft is committed if a person, with intent to gain, takes another's property without the latter's consent without use of violence or intimidation.

(b) Material possession is merely the physical possession of a thing without any right over it. Judicial possession is different in a sense that the possessor is vested with a right over a thing which he may set up even against the owner.

The crime committed is qualified theft.

Qualified theft is committed if the taking of a personal property belonging to another is done with an intent to gain, without the owner's consent, accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation, and with grave abuse of discretion.

In this scenario, the teller, for personal gain and use and with grave abuse of confidence being a trusted employee of the bank, takes the money of the depositor which is not his without the consent of the latter without the use of force or intimidation.

Hence, the teller must be liable of qualified theft.

A committed the crime of qualified theft.

Qualified theft is committed if a person, with intent to gain, takes the property of another without the latter's consent, without use of violence and intimidation, and with abuse of confidence.

In the case at bar, A, as a partner in business, abuse the confidence of B to him by taking B's share without his consent for his (A's) personal use.

The crime committed is estafa.

The Revised Penal Code provides that estafa is committed by any person who shall defraud another by misappropriating the money, goods, or any other personal property received by him in trust, on commission, or for administration, under an obligation to return the same, to the prejudice of another.

10.

Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea means that there is no ciminal liability absent any criminal intent. In resolving criminal cases, this maxim is used to determine whether or not the crime committed is malum in se or merely a malum prohibitum. In malum in se, intent is necessary, without which, the accused is acquitted. On the other hand, intent is not necessay in malum prohibitum. It is sufficient that a prohibited act is committed.

11.

The accused could have committed malversation of public funds.

In Criminal Law, malversation of public funds is committed if the public officer who has custody of public funds should appropriate the same, or shall take or misappropriate or shall consent, or through abandonment or negligence shall permit any other person to take such public funds.

12.

Yes. The accused can still be convicted of malversation by negligence.

It is a settled jurisprudence that the mere failure of the public officer to have faithfully accounted the public funds upon audit is prima facie evidence that he has taken them for personal use. A mere unexplainable shortage of the funds which the accountable officer could not support by concrete proof is enough for him to be liable of malversation.

13.

X committed the crime of malversation.

14.

The crime is still to be resolved by the Regional Trial Court.

It is a well-entrenced rule that the accused must be afforded a "fair day" in court. It is the accused's right of due process of law in giving him a day in court before which he could defend himself and given the full opportunity to oppose and destroy the allegations made against him.

In the instant problem, the facts alleged are mere allegations against the accused. Evidence in support to which must first be offered, admitted, and weighed before De Lima could be convicted of a violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act.

15.

In direct bribery, both the public officer and the giver agree that in consideration of the present or promise, such public officer shall act or omit to do an act in violation of a law. In indirect bribery, there is no such agreement. On the other hand, both of these types of bribery fall within the felony of corruption of a public official, wherein a private person makes an offer of gift or promise, in consideration of which, a public officer is induced to do a prohibited act.

16.

When in doubt, the resolve must favor the accused.

In the case of People vs. Luzviminda, respondent herein is denied bail by reason of no bail recommendation resulting from a crime charged against her whereas, in a similar crime which is more grievous and heinous than is charged, bail may be granted. Appying the rule on lenity, the resolved that Luzviminda should be granted bail. The Court ratiocinated that in case of doubt, the interpretation of law should be in favor of the accused and tilted against the State.

17.

(a) Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law vis-a-vis application of penalties punishable by special laws, the maximum indeterminate penalty shall not exceed the maximum limit of the prescribed penalty and the minimum indeterminate penalty shall not also be less than the minimum limit prescribed. However, if the special law uses the technical nomenclature of the penalties under the Revised Penal Code, the latter's provisions will apply.

(b) Yes, the penalty is correct. Since the penalty ranges from six months and one day to six years imprisonment, the straight penalty of only one year imprisonment is within such limits and, thus, is correct under the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

18.

Concubinage by a husband may be committed by: (a) keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling; (b) having sexual intercourse under scandalous circumstances with a woman who is not his wife; or (c) cohabiting with a woman other than his wife in any other place.

19.

The inferior court has jurisdiction.

In the scale of penalties, destierro comes after arresto mayor. By its nature, it is a lighter penalty than imprisonment and since under the Judiciary Act of 1984, crimes punishable with arresto mayor are within the jurisdiction of the inferior courts, it follows that crimes punishable with destierro are also within the jurisdiction of such courts. Further, a line of case laws had held that a crime punishable with destierro is within the inferior court's jurisdiction.

20.

No.

The ruling of the Supreme Court is unequivocal in that tribal court decision has no binding effect in Philipine jurisdiction. It may be convincing, nevertheless, it is insufficient to sustain a final adjudication on the merits. The Court further emphasized that Philippine courts do not deter to any exculpatory pronouncements made by a tribal court.

Thus, the contention of Ha Datu Tawahig that the Resolution issued by the Dadantulan Tribal Court should be honored and that Sumatra's criminal prosecution be put to an end is grounded on loose sand.

Immanuel Granada

2020-12-07

Karl Rigo Andrino

Exam: midterm examination in criminal law december 4, 2020

Word count: 2336

Writing time: 198 minutes

Email: karlrigo13@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

a. The contention of dela Renta is not tenable. The elements of the crime of malversation are the offender must be a public officer, that such officer had in his custody or control of funds or property by reason of his office, that such funds were public funds for which he is accountable and that he appropriated, took, or misappropriated for himself , or through abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to take them.

In the current case, de la Renta may still be prosecuted for the crime of malversation even if he is no longer an employee of PNB because at the the time the offense was committed he was still an employee of PNB.

b. Henry de Renta can still be suspended. The law expressly provides that a public officer in any criminal prosecution is suspended from office. In the case at bar, Mr. de Renta can still be suspended even if he is no longer an employee of PNB because he is still a public officer since PDIC is a government-owned and controlled corporation.

No. The motion of Judge Rod Reyes is bereft of merit. As a Deputy Ombudsman, he is a public officer that is within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. On his second motion, the Supreme Court has the exclusive jurisdiction to discpline and for the disbarment of lawyers.

In cases in a crime of homicide, when no documentary evidence of burial or funeral is expenses in court, the offended party is entitled to temperate damages.The amount to be awarded in cases of homicide is P50,000.00.

I must resolve the case in favor of the private respondent. The law does not provide that a guilty spouse who has been convicted disqualifies him or her from his or her share in the conjugal assets. The Civil Code provides separation of property may be effected voluntarily or judicially. In this case, this was done voluntarily and such motion to annul the compromise agreement is bereft of merit because the law does not provide that a guilty spouse is disqualified from his share of the conjugal assets.

a. The crime committed is estafa. The defendant has been given the material and juridical possession of the ring from the offended party to pledge it as security for a loan for the benefit of said offended party. The offended party has given the defendant the right to pledge such ring in his place which manifest the juridical possession of the ring to the defendant. Moreover, the defendant has appropriated the ring for his own benefit by selling to one of her neighbor for a sum of money. Hence, the defendant is guilty of estafa for having the juridical possession and material possession of the thing and has appropriated it for her own benefit.

b. Juridical possession means that a possession which gives the transferee a right over the thing transferred and he may set up even against the owner. While, material possession means that a person only has a mere physical possession of a thing. The relevance of distinguishing the two is that it determines whether the crime committed is estafa or theft. If an offender only has been entrusted with the material possession of the thing and he appropriates it for his own benefit, he committed theft. On the other hand, if an offender has the juridical and material possession of a thing and he appropriates it for himself, he committed estafa.

The crime committed is qualified theft. If a bank teller appropriates the money of a depositor for personal use is guilty of qualified theft because the bank teller only has material possession of the deposits in the bank. While, the bank has the juridical possession of such deposit. Since, the teller has the material possession of such funds she is only guilty of the crime of theft and not estafa. Further, a bank teller occupies a position of confidence, and the bank has placed the money in the teller's possession due to such confidence.

The crime committed by A is theft. The crime of theft is committed if there is taking of personal property; the said property belongs to another; that the taking was done with intent to gain; that the taking was done without the consent of the owner; and that taking was done without the use of violence and intimidation against persons or forced upon things. In a case decided by the Supreme Court it held that a crime of theft is committed when a person who has been entrusted with the material possession of a thing and has used if for his own benefit.

In this case, A took the share of his brother, B, for his own personal use without his consent by lying to him. A took B's share with intent to gain since he has used it for his own benefit. Furhter, A only has the material possession of B's share since such share was only entrusted to him so that they will divide their shares later on. Therefore, A is only guilty of theft.

The crime committed by Lina Velayo is the crime of Estafa through misappropriation. The crime of estafa through misappropriation is committed when this elements concur: first, the personal property has been received in trust, for administration; that there is conversion of such property by the person who received it; that such conversion causes injury to another; that there is demand for the return of the property.

In this case, Lina Velayo has received the sum of money in trust for the to register the property in behalf of WJA Holdings. She has the material and juridical possession of such property conferred upon her by the offended party. Further, Lina Velayo has converted the sum of money for her own benefit and has caused injury to the offended party. Furthermore, the offended party has demanded for return of such property but Lina Velayo has failed to comply with such demand. Therefore, Lina Velayo committed the crime of estafa through misappropriation.

In the case of Tabuena vs Sandiganbayan, Luis Tabuena and Adolfo Peralta were acquitted of the crime of malversation because they acted in strict compliance with Marcos Memorandum. Such order has been given by the president himself and the co-accused have acted in good faith in performing their duties. Therefore, they are not guilty of malversation.

10.

Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea means that a crime is not committed if the mind of the person performing the act complained of is innocent. This principle means that a person is not guilty of an offense charged against him if he had no criminal intent. There must be evil intent in order for a person to be guilty of an offense.

11.

The crime committed is malversation. The elements of the crime of malversation are the offender must be a public officer, that such officer had in his custody or control of funds or property by reason of his office, that such funds were public funds for which he is accountable and that he appropriated, took, or misappropriated for himself , or through abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to take them.

In this case, the postmaster is a public officer who has in his custody the public funds and received by reason of his position, in the way of fees, charges and stamps. He wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously and with grave abuse of confidence did then and there misappropriate, misapply, embezzle and convert to his own personal use and benefit from said funds in the total amount of P160,905.63, to the damage and prejudice of public interest . All the elements are present in this case. Hence, he is guilty of the crime of malversation.

12.

Yes, an accused charge with intentional malversation can be charged of malversation by negligence if the evidence in the case ultimately proves that he has committed malversation by negligence.

13.

The crime committed by X is direct bribery. The elements of direct bribery are the offender is a public oficcer, an agreement between the public officer and the giver of the gift and the offender agrees to perform an act or refrains from doing something because of the gift, and the crime or act relates to the exercise of his function as a public officer.

In the given case, Mr. X is a court sheriff, a public officer. He was to implement the order of the judge for the garnishment of Y's deposit and Y offered to give him P 10,000.00 in exchange for the favor to refrain from the garnishment of his account he accepted such offer and lifted the garnishment order. Such act manifests his criminal intent to lift the order by reason of the money offered by Y. All the elements of the crime of direct bribery are present in this case, hence, Mr. X is guilty of direct bribery.

14.

The crime committed is Illegal drug trading and is not a crime of direct bribery. Although there seems to be bribery in this case but it is a crime of illegal drug trading. It is true that some of the elements of direct bribery is similar to illegal drug trading but the crime of direct bribery is absorbed in the crime of illegal drug trading because the commission of direct bribery is incidental to the crime of illegal drug trading. In this case, it is clear that the money given to Secretary de Lima is incidental to the crime of illegal drug trading and is therefore, absorbed in such criminal offense.

The Regional Trial Court has the jurisdiction to try the case. RA 9165 expressly provides that all drug-related cases are exclusively vested with the Regional Trial Court.

15.

Both direct bribery and indirect bribery involves a public officer receiving gifts. In direct bribery, there is an agreement between the public officer and the giver of the gift and the offender agrees to perform an act or refrains from doing something because of the gift. In contrast, indirect bribery, there is no agreement between the public officer giver and it is not necessary that the officer should do any particular, as it is enough for him to accept the gift by reason of his office.

In corruption of a public official, a private person is the offender if he made offers or promises to give gifts or presents to public officers in exchange for doing something or refraining from doing something.

Yes, there is a crime of attempted corruption of a public official.

An illustration of the abovementioned crimes are as follows:

In direct bribery, a Traffic Enforcer receives a sum of money from a traffic violator to refrain from issuing him a ticket citation. In this illustration, the traffic violator is guilty of the crime of corruption of a public official.

In indirect bribery, a rich person who has been accused with the crime of estafa gave a judge of the trial court a Lambhorgini Aventador and the latter accepts such gift. The trial court judge is guilty of indirect bribery for receiving such gift.

16.

The principle of in dubio pro reo applies when the court is faced with two possible interpretations of a penal statute, one that is prejudicial to the accused and the other is favorable to the accused. This rule states that the interpretation which is lenient to the accused must be applied. It simply means that the interpretation that favors the accused must be applied.

17.

a. In applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law in a special law, the maximum periodmust not exceed the maximum that the special law has prescribed and the minimum cannot be less than the the prescribed minimum. It basically means that the judge has the discretion to impose a penalty limited by the maximum and minimum period prescribed by the special law.

b. No, the Judge cannot impose a straight penalty of imprisonment of one year. The judge must have imposed a maximum term and minimum term of the penalty. The Indeterminate Sentence Law require judges to impose a maximum term and minimum term of the imposable penalty. The ISLAW expressly provides for such because when the prisoner has served the minimum term, he becomes eligible for parole, provided that he has complied with the conditions imposed on him. Hence, judges are not allowed to impose straight penalties except for those listed in the said law which such law is not applicable.

18.

The three specific acts of concubinage by a husband are the following:

a. Shall keep a mistress in the conjugal dwelling. In this specific act of concubinage, the concubine or mistress must live in the dwelling even for a brief period of time, and it does not apply when such mistress ocassionally comes to spend the night.

b. Shall have sexual intercourse with a mistress under scandalous circumstances. This specific act of concubinage, is the act wherein the husband and the mistress has been seen in public flaunting their illicit and immoral relationship that shocks the public for such conduct.

c. Cohabit with the mistress in any other place. This specific act only applies if the husband and the mistress lives together as husband and wife.

19.

The Municipal Trial Court has jurisdiction over cases of Concubinage. The Supreme Court held that although the crime of concubinage has different penalties with respect to the husband and the concubine they are within the jurisdiction of the inferior courts. The husband can be charged with prision correcional which the MTC has jurisdiction while the concubine can be charged with destierro which the RTC has jurisdiction. The Supreme Court resolves such inconsistency by looking at the legislative intent manifesting that the legislature did no absurdly intended that one case will be tried in the MTC and the other in the RTC, they held that the MTC has jurisdiction over the case to harmonize the intent of the law.

20.

Karl Rigo Andrino

2020-12-07

Lady Rubyge Denura

Exam: midterm examination in criminal law december 4, 2020

Word count: 1520

Writing time: 242 minutes

Email: ladybyge@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

1. A.) The contention of dela Renta is not tenable.

Under the law, Malversation is commited with these elements:

a. offender is a public officer,

b. he has a custody or control of the funds or property by reason of his duty,

c. the funds or property involved is a public funds or property in which he is accountable,

d. he has misappropriated it

In the case at bar, dela Renta may be prosecuted for malversation even if he is no longer an employee of PNB because at the time of the commission of the offense all those elements for malversation is present. He is the a Regional Director, thus a public officer, and is subject to the Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.

B.) Dela Renta may still be suspended.

Under the law, any public officer who commits any criminal prosecution shall be suspended from office.

In the instant case, Henry may be suspended pendente lite even if he is no longer an employee of PNB when he was charged because the term office in the above-mentioned law speaks of any office in which the public officer is currently holding.

2. Both motions of Judge Reyes should be denied because being an impeachable officer, Sandiganbayan has a jurisdiction to prosecute him and being a member of the bar, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the petition for disbarment.

3. In the crime of homicide, if the prosecution failed to present any receipt to substantiate the claims of the heirs for an award of actual damages, the trial court may award temperate damages for homicide the amount is P50,000.

4. The petition must fail.

The contention that the compromise agreement is tantamount to a circumvention of the law prohibiting the guilty spouse from sharing in the conjugal properties is misplaced because existing law and jurisprudence do not impose such disqualification. The Compromises Agreement which was judicailly approved is such a separation of property which is allowed under the law.

5. A.) The crime committed is theft.

The elements of theft are a.) taking of presonal property, b.) the property belongs to another, c.) the taking was done with the intent to gain and d.) it was done without the consent of the owner.

In the case at bar, while it is true that the property was presented for the purpose of pleading it but the defendant intentionally carried in immediately to their neighbor with the intent to gain without the owners consent, thus, all the elements of theft are present in this case.

B. In material possesion, when the property received without reluctant and received it and misappropraite the same, theft was committed because the owner is deprived of his property without consent which constitutes unlawful taking. On the other hand, if juridical possession is transferred then estafa is the crime committed. Meanwhile, theft is qualified if it is coupled with grave abuse of confidence and trust.

6. The crime committed is theft when a bank teller appropriates the money of a depositor for personal gain or use. However it can be a qualified theft if he/she holds a position of confidence and the bank places money in her possession due to the confidence and trust reposed on him/her.

7. A did not commit any crime. Under the law, brothers and sisters living together are exempt from criminal liabililty. Also, theft of robbery cannot be commited between co owners. What can B do is to file a civil action for the loss he incurred.

8. The crime committed by Lina Velayo was Estafa.

Under the law, the elements of Estafa are a.) that the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit, b.) that the damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or to a third person.

In the case at bar, it is worthy to note that when the money, goods or any other personal property is receieved by the offender from the offended party in trust or on commision or for administration, the offender acquires both material or physical possession and the juridical possession of the thing receieved. Lina misapplied, misappropriated and converted to her own personal use and benefit the aggregate amount of more than 3M and despite repeated demands, accused failed to comply, thus, having all the elements of the crime Estafa present in the information.

9.)

10.) Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea means that an act does not make anyone guilty unless there is a criminal intent or a guilty mind. Thus, for this maxim to apply in resolving criminal cases, it must be proved that the criminal act was done with a criminal intent.

11. ) The crime commited basing on the information is intentional malversation. For the reason that in the information, it is clear in its allegations that the accused "wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously and wih grave abuse of confidence did then and there misappropriate, misapply, embezzle and convert to his own personal use and benefit from the said funds in the total amount of P160,905.63.

12.) Yes, if an accused is charged with intentional malversation, he can be convicted of malversation by negligence.

Malversation is commited either intentionally or by negligence. The dolo and culpa present is only a modality in the perpetraion of the offense, thus, even if the charge in the information is different from what was prove and it was proven otherwise, then the same malversation is involved and therfore conviction is proper.

13. X committed direct bribery.

Under the law, the elements of direct bribery are a.) the offender is a public officer, b.) that there be an agreement between the giver and the public officer, c.) the offender or the public officer agrees to perform an act or refrain from doing something because of the gift and d.) that the act perform is related to his function as a public officer.

In the case at bar, all the elements are present for X to be guilty of direct bribery. It was clearly shown that X as a public officer did not perform his duty in favor of Y and receives P10,000 in exchange for such favor.

14. The crime commited is Illegal Drug Trading.

Under the law, the crime of direct bribery is absorbed in cases involving illegal drug trade. The reason being is that the commission of the direct bribery in some cases is incidental to the illegal drug trade.

In the given case, the accused Leila De Lima took advtage of her office and receives money which is incidental to the crime of illegal drug trade, thus, the crime commited is illegal drug trade.

The Regional Trial Court are vested with exclusive jurisdiction over all drug related cases.

15.) In Direct Bribery there is an agreement between the public officer and the giver of gift, also the offender aggrees to perform or refrain from doing something while in Indirect Bribery there is no agreement exists and that it is enough that he accepted the gift.

Yes, there is a crime of attempted corruption. An example of which is when the public officer refused to be corrupted, the corruptor is only liable for attempted corruption and there is no bribery.

16.) Dubio pro reo means that a defendant may not be convicted when doubts about his/her guilt remains.

Relating this principle in the case of People vs Luzviminda Valdez, it stressed out that when the court is faced with two possible interpretation of the law, one that is prejudicial and the other is favorable to the accused, then it should be ruled out to be in favor and to be more lenient to the accused.

17. A.) Indeterminate Sentence Law is a sentence with a minimum and maximum term are applicable to those divisible penalty and if not disqualified. The benefit of which is that when the accused already served the minimum period then if he is qualified he can apply for a parole.

B.) As mentioned above, ISL is one favorable to the accused, however, supposing the Judge imposes a straight penalty for one year, it is still correct and will not be violative of the context of ISL.

18.) Under Article 334 of the RPC the 3 acts committed by the husband are:

a. keeping the mistress in the conjugal dwelling

b. having sexual intercourse under scandalous circumstances with a woman not his wife

c. cohabiting with her in any other place

19.) The court that has jurisdiction to try concubinage case is the MTC.

Under the law, those penalty for crimes like distiero is within the jurisdiction of the inferior courts.

In the case at bar, even when the husband will be imposed of greater penalty it should be noted that the offended party cannot institute criminal prosecution without including both parties, thus, for the interests of administering justice, the inferior courts such as MTC will have the jusrisdiction to try concubinage cases.

20.)

Lady Rubyge Denura

2020-12-07

Liwayway Elumbaring

Exam: midterm examination in criminal law december 4, 2020

Word count: 1296

Email: Liwaywayelumbaring.realmotors@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

1.)

* No, Dela Renta's contention is not tenable. The case cannot be dismissed on the ground that he is no longer an employee of Philippine National Bank a government Banking Institution because the irregularities and violations of the bank's rules regulations was then committed while he was still an employee of the said bank. Therefore, the motion to dismiss filed by Henry Dela Rentas will not prosper.

* Yes, he may be suspended. The law states that for every or any offense involving fraud upon government or public funds or propert whether as a simple or as a complex offense and in whatever stage of execution and mode of participation, is pending in court shall be suspended from office.

2. No, both motions are not meritorious. The Ombudsman and its subordinates are appointed by the President for a non-renewable seven year-term. The Ombudsman can only be removed from office only through impeachment.

3. The amount of damages of death caused by a crime shall be at least three thousand pesos (P3,000.00). The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased and the indemnity shall be paid to the heirs. Such indemnity shall in every case be assessed and awarded by the court, unless the deceased on account of permanent physical disability not caused by the defendant and had no earning capacity at the time of his death. The spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the deceased may demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased.

4. The compromise agreement entered into during the pre-trial is final and executory. Therefore, the petitioner can no longer file a motion to annul the COMPROMISE AGREEMENT that was voluntarily signed by both parties.

a.) The crime committed here is estafa. A estafa is a criminal offense wherein a person defrauds another by unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, by deceit and by fraudulent means. in other words, estafa is committed by a person who defrauds another by causing him to suffer damage by means of unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence or of faulse pretense or fraudulent acts.

b.) Juridical possession means a possession which gives the transferee a right over the thing which the transferee may set up even against the owner. On the other hand, material possession held no independent right or title.

*There is a confusion in charging the proper offense because of the similarities in the elements of Qualified theft and estafa. However, the following principles distinguish one from the other. The conversion of personal property in the case of an employee having material possession of the said property constitutes theft, whereas in the case of an agent to whom both material and juridical possession have been transferred, misappropriation of the same property constitutes estafa. So long as the juridical possession of the thing appropriated did not pass to the perpetrator, the offense committed remains to be theft, qualified or otherwise.

6. If the teller of a bank appropriates the money of the depositor for personal gain or use, the crime committed is estafa because there is an abuse of confidence as the teller of the bank.

7. The crime committed is estafa since there is fraud and abuse of confidence as business partners. However, if they are living under the same roof they are exempt from criminal liability.

8. Based on the above mentioned information, the crime committed was estafa. All the elements of the crime of estafa were present like that the accused defrauded another. It might be by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit and that damage or prejudice capable of pecubiary estimation is caused to the offended party or third person.

9. The principle applied in acquitting the case of the accused is presumption of innocence. Finding of prima facie evidence of accountability does not shatter the presumptive innocence.

10. actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea means that unless the contrary is specified, every criminal offense requires both a criminal act, expressed in Latin as the actus reus and a criminal intention, expressed as mens rea. Mens rea is often described as the mental element in a crime or a criminal intent. A mens rea refer to the state of mind statutorily required in order to convict a particular defendant of a particular crime.

11. The crime committed is malversation of public funds. Since the people entrused him the money in the way of fees, charges and stamps and uses the money for his own purposes.

12. Malversation is committed either intentionally or by negligence. The dolo or the culpa present in the offense is only a modality in the perpetration of the felony.

13. The crime committed by X is bribery. This is because bribery is committed when someon is offering, giving, soliciting or receiving af any item of value as a means of influencing actions of an individual holding a public or legal duty. Since Mr. X as a court sheriff accepted the P10,000 in exchange of a favor, hence, he can be charged in a crime of bribery.

14. The crime committed here is direct bribery because there is an agreement between the public officer and the giver of the gift or present. It is not necessary that the officer should do any particular act or even promise to do an act, it is enough that he accepts gift offered to him by reason of his office.

15. In both crimes, the public officer receives gift. While in direct bribery, there is an agreement between public officer and the giver of the gift or present. In indirect bribery, usually no such agreement exist. In direct bribery , the offender agrees to perform or performs on an act or refrains from doing something because of the gift or promise in indirect bribery, it is not necessary that the officer should do any particular act or even promise to do an act, as it is enough that he accepts gifts offered to him by reason of his office.

* Yes, there is a crime as attempted corruption of public official.

16. The principle of in dubio pro reo or when in doubt, for the accused means that the defendant may not be convicted by the court when doubts about his or her guilt remain.

17.

a.) Indeterminate sentence law is a sentence with a minimum term and a mmaximum benefit of a guilty person, who is not disqualified therefore, when the maximum penalty of imprisonment exceeds one year. It applies to both violations of the Revised Penal Code and special laws.

b.) Yes, if the trial Judge imposes a straight penalty of imprisonment for one year, the penalty is still correct in the context of the indeterminate Sentence law because the penalty is within the range fixed by the court.

18. Article 334 of the Revised Penal Code lists three (3) specific acts of concubinage by a husband: These are keeping the mistress in the conjugal dwelling, sexual intercourse under scandalous circumstances with a woman who is not his wife and cohabiting with a woman who is not his wife in any other place.

19. The Supreme Court has clarified this issue and ruled that the crime of concubinage is well-within the jurisdiction of the inferior courts. This is under the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980.

20. No, the contention of Ha Datu Tahawig is not correct. The law is clear that whoever commits a crime under our law will be punished. Since rape is a crime, hence, Ha datu Tahawig is liable under the Revised Penal Code. Our law does not honor the said tribal court and therefore he can be prosecuted under our Philippine law.

Liwayway Elumbaring

2020-12-07

Marnelli Pastorfide

Exam: midterm examination in criminal law december 4, 2020

Word count: 1599

Writing time: 178 minutes

Email: moulan09@gmail

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

1. (a) Dela Renta's contention is not tenable. The elements of malversation are that the offender is a public officer, that he had custody or control of the funds by virtue of his position, that said funds were public funds and that he misappropriated said funds. In the given facts, all elements are present. His employment with PDIC which is a GOCC means he is still employed by the government, hence, the case will prosper. The time when said act was committed is of no moment because a logic running along reasons of delayed discovery of an illegal act will be very prejudicial to the public.

(b) The law expressly provides for a preventive suspension of an officer who has a pending case that involves fraud upon the goverment or public funds. Regardless therefore if he is currently employed by PDIC.

2. The arguments or motions presented by Judge Rod Reyes has no merit. All public officials can be properly charged in court. He does not enjoy the privilege of immunity from suit. He is not above the law. His office does not carry with it the privilege of being higher than other courts when there is probable cause that will warrant for the filing of a criminal case in the regular courts.

3. The trial court may award civil indemnity ex delicto in the amount of Php12,000(since there is no need to present any proof of expenses incurred), an award for moral damages in the amount of Php50,000(dependent upon the court's discretion), exemplary damages in the amount of Php20,000 and indemnity for loss of earning capacity computed based from the monthly earning of the victim. A fixed figure cannot be arrived at since there is no indication in the facts whether or not the victim was employed. Actual damages can also be awarded for the payment of the legal services and other processes that necessitated spending by the heir. Nevertheless, the life of a person is priceless, hence, the court cannot err in awarding the maximum allowable amount for every damages awarded.

4. Being convicted of adultery does not mean you will suffer civil interdiction. Civil interdiction is when a person is deprived of his/her right to manage her property. Hence, the compromise is valid and the forfeiture cannot be effected. And entering into a compromise binds bought party to honor the agreement expressed therein.

5. (a) The most possible crime committed in this case is estafa because the elements of said crime is present in the given facts. For estafa to prosper, the respondent must have defrauded another through abuse of confidence or deceit and that the damage which is capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the plaintiff. Clearly, there was defrauding through abuse of confidence and it is capable of pecuniary estimation.

(b) Material possession is having actual possession while juridical possession gives the person a right over the thing. Just because you possessed a certain thing, does immediately denotes ownership or right to transfer said thing. The mode of how you acquired the thing will determine whether possession is not only material possession but juridical as well. In the given case, the possession of the defendant is only material in nature. He/She is only a mere conduit. Since the owner of the thing gave her ring freely to defendant, the case should be estafa. A case of theft or qualified theft will not prosper since the element of taking a personal property without the knowledge of the owner is not present.

6. The crime of qualified theft is committed by the bank teller. There was a taking of the property which belongs to another without their knowledge and used said property with intent to gain. There was no violence involved nor was there intimidation or force made in the taking of said property. The bank teller gravely abused the confidence of the client. All mentioned are elements for the crime of qualified theft to prosper.

7. The crime of estafa is committed by the other partner who also happens to be the brother. Estafa is committed when the following elements are present: 1. one defrauded another by means of deceit or abuse of confidence; and that the damage is capable of pecuniary estimation. The given facts suggest that the most approriate case is estafa. Regardless of both being brothers, they are also partners. To be partners, the parties must come to an agreement to share and profit in the venture.

8. The crime of estafa is committed. Estafa is committed when the following elements are present: 1. one defrauded another by means of deceit or abuse of confidence; and that the damage is capable of pecuniary estimation.

9. In the case of Tabuena vs. Sandiganbayan, it was held that the defendant only adhered to the order of the president. The presumption of regularity since it emanated from the office of the highest officer of the land was what prompted Tabuena to disburse funds which were not in accordance with prescribed procedures. The issuance of a memorandum is prima facie evidence that Tabuena was in good faith when he complied with the directive. There was no intent on his part to appropriate the funds for his own convenience or at his own discretion.

10. The latin maxim" actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea" literally translate to an act does not make a man guilty without a guilty mind. There must be intent that precedes the act for a crime to come about. If a crime was done unintentionally by a person but he is oblivious that he committed a crime, the maxim will be considered in determining his criminal liability. I have to state though that this run against the provision of the civil code which states that, "ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith." I cannot express fully my thoughts on how this is applied because I do not see the appropriateness of the application of this maxim in our judicial system. We have set up standards in the form of elements of crimes and from there the courts are to base their decisions. For our judicial system to be equitable, we must stay true and consistently conform to standards set by law otherwise we will all be in a quandary.

11. The crime committed is malversation under the RPC. For malversation to occur, the following must be present: 1) that the offender is a public officer; 2) that he has custody and control of public funds because of his position and; 3) that he took said funds and misapproriated it.

12. As decided in the case of Cabello, being charged with intentional malversation will not bar for the charging of malversation by negligence. The court decided that the information alleging that intentional malversation was committed but what was latter on surmised as malversation by negligence is allowed and had been done.

13. The crime committed is direct bribery. The sheriff refrained from executing the orders of the court, hence, he is liable of said crime. For direct bribery to occur, the following must be present: the defendant is a public officer; accepts a gift or present; and refrain from doing something that he is mandated to do.

14. The RTC has jurisdiction over De lima's case which is violation of R.A. 9165. This was as decided by the Supreme Court en banc. The basis of the ruling was because violation of R.A. 9165 falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the regional trial courts.

15. For direct bribery to occur, the following must be present: the defendant is a public officer; accepts a gift or present; and refrain from doing something that he is mandated to do. While indirect bribery is committed by a public officer who accepts gifts offered to him by reason of his office.

16 The dubio pro reo principle actually speaks of having doubts as to the guilt of the accused. In essence, the court will have to apply lenity if this is the case. The principle is premised on the occurence of dual interpretations of a statute. Under said principle, the interpretation more favorable to the accused will be considered.

17.

18. Under 334 a husband is committing concubinage when: 1) keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling; 2) shall have sexual intercourse under scandalous circumstances with another women not his wife and; 3) shall cohabit with her in any other palce. The first act refers to living under one roof with the wife and family of the husband by the mistress (the other woman) which is absolutely frowned upon not only by our laws but by our morals as well. The second instance is having coitous in a way that is humiliating to the wife and family. Example is having sex in a place where it is plain for others to see. While the third instance is living together with the woman thereby abandoning the wife and/or family.

19. The municipal courts or the municipal trial courts in cities have jurisdiction over the case same with adultery. The prescibed penalty fall well within the jurisdiction of afore-mentioned courts.

20. The IPRA of 1997 does not compel courts from not taking cognizance of criminal cases involving indigenous peoples. The reason why the state punishes a criminal act is to maintain law and order and uphold the rights of its constitutents. Also the crimes committed by the tribal leader is in direct violation of the rights of the person who is also entitled to the protection of the state

Marnelli Pastorfide

2020-12-07

Mendel Casao

Exam: midterm examination in criminal law december 4, 2020

Word count: 1619

Email: delsky056@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

Answer:

1. Q1.) Dela Renta's contention is untenable. He may no longer be an employee of the PNB, a government banking institution, but due to the fact that he committed the offense while he was still employed with the PNB and that the crime committed has not yet prescribed, he is liable for the act committed. Therefore, the motion to dismiss should be denied. His contention is not a defense against the prosecution for the crime of malversation of public funds.

Q2.) Dela Renta may be suspended from his present occupation. His defense of being no longer an employee of the PNB but currently employed by the PDIC is not valid. Both of his previous and current employers are governmental financial institutions of which he performs governmental functions and as such, he is a public officer. As a public officer, he can be suspended from office for committing unlawful acts while in office, even if his current office is different from his previous office but just the same, both occupations are considered as public office. Hence, Dela Renta can be suspended.

2. For the motion to dismiss the complaint for acts of lasciviousness filed with the Ombudsman claiming lack of jurisdiction over his person and office is meritorious. Under the law and jurisprudence, a member of the judiciary is not under the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. Here, Judge Reyes cannot be charged in the Ombudsman but he is not immuned from prosecution in court for committing a criminal act. In this case, the complaint filed with the Ombudsman should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over his person and office.

For the motion to dismiss filed with the Supreme Court, the motion has no merit. Under the Constitution and the law, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the person and office of Judge Reyes being a member of the bench. Therefore, the case against him must prosper.

3. In a crime of homicide under the present jurisprudence released by the Court, if the prosecution fails to present proof or receipt of actual expenses incurred in the wake and burial of the victim, the Court cannot award it. Absence of proof of expenses incurred in the wake and burial of the victim will be a cause for non awarding of actual damages. But moral and exemplary damages may be awarded by the trial court each amounting to 100,000.Php.

4. In a case of adultery, when the parties voluntarily signed a compromise agreement, it may amount to a pardon wherein the spouse forgives the other spouse even if the other spouse had already been convicted of adultery. Such a compromise agreement gives the other spouse the right to recover her share of the conjugal partnership properties.

5.a.) The crime commited here is estafa under the Revised Penal Code, for abuse of confidence.

b.) Material possession is the actual possession of the thing or object, while juridical possession is the implied or presumed possession of the thing even if the thing is in the possession of a third person as long as the owner has still the control over the disposition and use of the thing or object.

Material possession is relevant in the crime of theft if the thing stolen is found in the possession of another person. That person having possession of the stolen item is guilty of theft. The same with qualified theft if the material possession of the stolen item is found in the possession of the person entrusted with housekeeping and cleaning in the house of the owner.

Juridical possession is material in the crime of estafa when the thing possessed by a person is entrusted to him for safekeeping or for further delivery to the owner and he appropriates for himself the thing, or he failed to deliver it to the rightful owner, to the damage and prejudice of such owner, such person who appropriated it for himself or failed to deliver the thing is guilty of the crime of estafa.

6. If a bank teller appropriates the money of the depositor for his personal gain or use, he is liable for qualified theft under the Revised Penal Code. A bank teller is entrusted with trust and confidence in performing their duty in a bank, such duty entails the responsibility to ensure the safety of their client's money and property. Therefore he is liable for qualified theft for appropriating for his own personal gain the money of the depositor.

7. In the case at bar, no crime is committed by A, but A is civilly liable to B for taking the share intended to B. Under the Revised Penal Code, there no criminal liability for acts of theft, estafa or malicious mischief committed by a person against his direct relative. Therefore A is not criminally liable but only civilly liable to B.

8. The cime committed in the above information is estafa through abuse of confidence.

10. actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea means the person is not criminally liable if there is no criminal intent. When an act committed is culpable offense or with negligence, then the offender is not criminally liable but only civilly liable. These acts are not intentional acts. This doctrine was applied in unintentional offenses where the accused commited the act without malice or while in the lawful performance of a duty.

11. In the case at bar, on the basis of the information presented, the accused herein is liable for Malversation of Public Funds. All the elements of malversation are present in this case. He, being a public officer accountable for the public funds collected and received by reason of his position, misappropriate, misapply, embezzle and convert to his personal use and benefit the said funds to the damage and prejudice of the government. Therefore, the accused is liable for malversation of public funds.

12. If an accused is charged with intentional malversation, under the Rules and under the law, he cannot be convicted of malversation by negligence. If a person has committed malversation by negligence, the Court ruled that he cannot be convicted of the crime because the element of intent to commit the offense is lacking.

13. In the case presented, X committed the crime of Direct Bribery under the Revised Penal Code. Direct Bribery is committed when a person accepts an offer or a gift in exchange for the performance or non performance of a duty.

14. The crime committed in this case is trading and trafficking of illegal drugs punished under R.A. 9165 or The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. This case fall under the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court as provided for by the said law and jurisprudence.

15. Direct Bribery under the Revised Penal Code is committed by a public officer by performing or not performing a regular function or duty in exchange for an offer, a gift or a favor. It is necessary that the offer, gift or favor is accepted by the public officer. If the offer is not accepted, the person offering it is liable for attempted corruption of public official. But if the offer, gift, or favor is accepted, the public official is liable for direct bribery and the offeror is liable for corruption of a public official.

Indirect Bribery is committed when a public officer accepts a gift by reason of his office. Such gift is intended for a future favor to be demanded by the one who offered the gift.

16. In dubio pro reo principle means "in favor of the accused". All doubts concerning the application of the law should be resolved in favor of the accused and contrary to the government. This principle was applied in the case of People v. Luzviminda Valdez where the law favors the application of lesser penalty to the accused rather than giving a higher penalty for the offense committed.

17.a.) In crimes punished by special laws, the Indeterminate Sentence Law shall be applied if the said special law prescribes the punishment provided under the Revised Penal Code. If not, then the Indeterminate Sentence Law shall not be applied.

b.) If the trial judge imposes a straight penalty of one year imprisonment of the convicted person, the penalty is correct as it is within the period of the penalty of prision correctional and so the minimum period is six months and one day, the maximum period is one year.

18. The three specific acts committed by a husband for concubinage under the Revised Penal Code are: that the husband have a sexual relationship with a woman other than his own wife; that he cohabits with his concubine in his own home with or without consent of his spouse; that he has sexual relationship with his concubine under scadalous circumstances.

19. In the case at bar, the Supreme Court resolved the issue of jurisdiction involving cases of concubinage. The Court ruled that the penalty of distierro which is not an imprisonment but a mere banishment, is lower than prision correctional as held in earlier cases decided. Hence, the Court held that jurisdiction over cases involving the crime of concubinage fall under the jurisdiction of the inferior courts which is the Municipal Trial Courts.

20. The contention of Datu Tawahig is not correct. The Supreme Court held in the case that the Indigenous People's Law did not provide that crimes committed by indigenous people cannot be prosecuted by the regular courts. The accused cannot hide behind the law on indigenous people in order to escape criminal liability. He is liable for committing rape under the Revised Penal Code. In this case, the petition for mandamus must be denied.

Mendel Casao

2020-12-07

Mudzmar Muyong

Exam: midterm examination in criminal law december 4, 2020

Word count: 795

Email: scintillan_mudi@yahoo.com

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

Dela Renta's contention is not tenable. Dela Renta may be prosecuted for malversation even if he had ceased to be an employee of the PNB. At the time the crime was committed PNB was a government-owned and controlled corporation.

Dela Renta may still be suspended pendente lite despite holding a different public office, when he was charged. According to the Supreme Court, the term office includes office which the officer might be currently holding and not necessarily the office or position in relation to which he is charged.

Both motions are unmeritorious. According to the 1987 Constitution only the Ombudsman is included in the list of impeachable officers. Therefore, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over his prosecution. The Supreme Court has also jurisdiction over the petition for disbarment because he is a member of the Bar.

a. The crime committed here is estafa with abuse of confidence. Here, the defendant received the property and converted it to his own benefit.

b. Juridical possession gives the transferee a right over the thing, which the trasnferee may set up even against the owner. On the other hand, material possession does not vest a right over a transferee.

The crime committed is qualified theft on the theory that the possession of the teller is the possession of the bank. When the teller appropriated the money to his own use without the consent of the bank, there was taking. Hence, the crime committed is theft.

The crime committed is estafa with false pretenses.

The crime committed is theft. When any personal property is received by the offender from the offended party in trust or commission or for administration, the offender acquires both material and juridical possession of the thing received.

The principle is illustrated in the case of Tabuena vs. Sandiganbayan. The legal presumption of good faith, regularity in the performance of functions and innocence apply whether the acts are that of high officials.

10.

The maxim "actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea" means that evil intent must unite with an unlawful act for a crime to exist. According to the Supreme Court, in resolving criminal cases, the rule is that, there can be no crime when the criminal mind is wanting.

11.

The crime committed is malversation of public funds. According the Revised Penal Code, any public officer who, by reason of the duties of his office, is accountable for public funds or property, shall appropriate the same, shall be guilty of the crime of malversation of public funds.

12.

Yes, because negligence is just a means of committing the crime of malversation.

13.

The crime committed is direct bribery. According to the Revised Penal Code, any public officer who shall agree to perform a crime, in connection with the performance of his official duties, in consideration of any offer, promise or gift received by such officer, shall be liable for the crime of direct bribery. Here, Mr. X agreed to perform the crime of dereliction of duty in consideration of a gift.

14.

15.

In direct bribery, there is an agreement between the public officer and the giver of the gift. In indirect bribery, usually no such agreement exist.

Yes, there is a crime of attempted corruption of public official. According to the Supreme Court, when the accused did not perform all the acts of the execution which should have produced the crime of bribery as a consequence by reason of a cause other than his own voluntary desistance, the crime committed is attampted corruption of public officials.

16.

According to the Supreme Court, the doctrine of in dubio pro reo means, when in doubt rule for the accused. The accused may not be convicted by the court when doubts about his or her guilt remain.

17.

a. If the offense is punished by any other law, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law, and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the said law.

NO, the penalty is not correct in the context of Indeterminate Sentence Law. If the Judge imposes a straight penalty of one year or less, the Indeterminate Sentence Law will not apply.

18. The following are the specific acts of concubinage by a husband;

1. Keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling;

2. sexual intercourse, under scandalous circumstances, with a woman who is not his wife; and

3. cohabiting with a woman who is not his wife in any other place.

19.

According to the Supreme Court the jurisdiction for the prosecution of concubinage falls within the juridiction of MTC.

20.

The contention of Ha Datu is not correct.

Mudzmar Muyong

2020-12-07

Oscar Abadies Jr

Exam: midterm examination in criminal law december 4, 2020

Word count: 1198

Writing time: 221 minutes

Email: oabadiesjr@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Judge Bastasa, R

1. No. It was held that a public official may not be absolved for his prior unlawful acts relating to his office albeit he is employed to another instrumentality of the government.

Since he is still covered within the domain of an instrumentality of the government, he can still be suspended in order to forestall any influence that he may employ in making his defense respecting the charge.

2. No. It is settled that a Deputy Ombudsman can be charged in the same office since he does not belong to those impeachable officers. Charges against him may be referred to the proper authority for the purpose of filing a verified complaint.

3. Under the law, the court may award the heirs of the victim for temperate damages when pecuniary loss has been suffered but the amount cannot be proven with certainty. In such case, the amount of the award is left to the discretion of the court, according to the circumstance of each case, provided it is reasonable since temperate damages should be more than nominal but less than compensatory.

4. The case should be decided in favor of the innocent spouse.

Under the law, the innocent spouse may claim the conjugal assets, while the guilty spouse may forego the claims over conjugal properties.

a. The crime committed is estafa with unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence.

Under the law, any person who would defraud another through unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, among others, is guilty of estafa by altering the the quantity or quality of any thing of value by virtue of an obligation to do so.

b. Under the law, juridical possession entails a possession which gives the transferee a right over the thing which the transferee may set up even against the owner; whereas, material possession means the holder of the thing has no independent right or title of the thing held.

These principles are relevant in the crime of estafa since if juridical possession of the funds may not be proved, then estafa by misappropriation may not be charged against the accused.

6. The teller is guilty of qualified theft which is taking of personal property that belongs to another, with intent to gain and sans owner's consent.

Moreover, it has been held that the receiving teller of a bank who misappropriated money received by him or her for the bank, is guilty of qualified theft for the reason that the possession of the teller is akin to the possession of the bank.

7. If A and B are living together, then the former is exempt from criminal liability, because under the law, brothers and sisters who are living together in the same house are exempt from criminal liability in the crime of theft, swindling and malicious mischief. But the offender may be civilly liable. Contrariwise, A may be held liable if both are not living together in the same abode.

8. Since Velayo has juridical possession over the funds as the agent of WJA through her own representation that she was able to get hold of the money and later on absconded, then she is guilty of estafa for breach of trust.

It has been held that if what was delivered was juridical possession of the property, the misappropriation of the same is estafa.

9. This principle is illustrated in the case of Tabuena v Sandiganbayan wherein Tabuena misappropriated money with his conspirators Peralta and Dabao. They were then charged in the Sandiganbayan for malversation but were acquitted because Tabuena only acted in compliance with President Marcos' memorandum, hence it is presumed to be regularly made and thus in good faith.

10. Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea enunciates that the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty. Hence, in resolving criminal cases, the intent and the act of the accused must both concur to constitute a crime.

11. The crime allegedly committed in this case is malversation of public funds.

It is settled that malversation is committed either through a positive act of misappropriation of public funds or passively through negligence by allowing to commit it. Thus, an accountable officer may be convicted of malversation even if there is no direct evidence of misappropriation.

12. Yes, because it is settled that an accused charged with willful malversation can be validly convicted of malversation through negligence where the evidence sustains the latter mode of perpetrating the offense.

13. Mr. X is liable for direct bribery.

Under the law, any public officer who shall agree to perform an act constituting a crime, in connection with the performance of his official function in consideration of any offer, promise, among others, is guilty of direct bribery.

Here, Mr. X performs an act offered by Y in exchange of favor of value. Thus, the former is liable for direct bribery.

14. The crime committed here is illegal trading of dangerous drugs under R.A. 9165 where De Lima is alleged to have conspired with the inmates in selling illegal drugs under Section 5 in relation to Sections 3, 26 and 28 of the said law. The jurisdiction over said offense is within the province of the Regional Trial Court.

15. In both crimes, the public officer receives gift. However, in direct bribery, there is an agreement between the public officer and the giver of the gift; while in indirect bribery, there is none of such agreement.

16. This is the rule of lenity wherein the court, in construing an ambiguous criminal law that sets out multiple or inconsistent punishments, should resolve the ambiguity in favor of the more lenient punishment.

17.

a. As to special law, if the offense is punished by any other law, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term if which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by the said law, and the minimum of which shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same.

b. If the Judge sentence the accused to 1 year of imprisonment or less, the indeterminate sentence law will not apply, and thus there is no need to fix the maximum penalty.

18. The following are the specific acts in concubinage, viz:

a. By keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling;

b. By having sexual intercourse under scandalous circumstances with a woman not his wife;

c. By cohabiting with her in any other place.

Thus, if the charges consist in keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling, there is no need for proof of sexual intercourse. Also, the woman must be brought in the conjugal house by the accused as a concubine.

19. It is the inferior court which has jurisdiction over it. It exercises exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with imprisonment of not exceeding 4 years. Also, the law provides that jurisdiction over crimes punishable with destierro is vested in the inferior courts.

20. No, because it is settled that the Philippine legal system's framework for the protection of indigenous peoples was never intended and will not operate to deprive courts of jurisdiction over criminal cases. Hence, these people cannot invoke R.A. 8371 to evade prosecution and liability under courts of law.

Oscar Abadies Jr

2020-12-07

Pamela Rubi-Anito

Exam: midterm examination in criminal law december 4, 2020

Word count: 1261

Writing time: 154 minutes

Email: pamela12813@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

Problem 1

No, dela Renta;s contention is untenable.

Dela Renta may be prosecuted for malversation even if he no longer an employee of the PNB. PNB was a GOCC at the time of the commission of the offense. Any crime committed by a Regional Bank Auditor, who is a public officer, is under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan as provided for by law.

Hence, the contention of dela Renta that he can no longer be charged because he was no longer an employee of PNB is untenable under the law.

Dela Renta may still be suspended pendente lite.

Notwithstanding that Dela Renta now holds a different public office, in the PDIC when the charged was filed, he can still be suspended. Jurisprudence provides that the term "office" under the law applies to any office that the officer might be currently holding. It is not necessary that the office in which one currently holding is the same office of which he is charged.

Hence, Dela Renta may still be suspended pending the charge of malversation against him.

Problem 2:

Both motions are not meritorous.

As to the complaint of acts of lasciviousness filed before the Office of the Ombudsman, is properly filed against Judge Reyes. Although the act complaint of happened when he was still a judge, considering his current office, the Ombudsman could have jurisdiction over his person and office.

As to the petition for disbarment, Judge Reyes motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction is unmeritorious.

Problem 3:

Per latest Jurisprudence, when the penalty is reclusion perpetua, the court may award civil indemnity of P75,000.00; as moral damages for P75,000.00 and as exemplary damages for P 75,000.00

Problem 4:

The issue should be resolved against the petitioner.

Jurisprudence provides that a judgment on compromose agreement is a judgment on the merits of the case. The same is immediately final and executory unless set aside due to vices of consent or falsity.

Here, the compromise agreement was voluntary entered into by the parties. Hence, both are bound with the terms of the compromise agreement.

Problem 5:

a.) Here, the crime committed is estafa. Under the law, estafa by misappropriation is committed when money or goods or any personal property is received by the offender from the offended party in trust, on commission or for administration and such was misappropriated. In this case, the offender accquires both material and juridical possession of the thing received. Misappropriating the thing amounts to estafa.

b.) Material or physical possession exists when a thing is merely placed in possession of the receiver. Juridical possession, on the other hand, happens when a possession gives the transferee a right over the thing which the transferee may set up even against the owner.

So long as juridical possession of the thing appropriated did not pass on to the offender, the offense committed remains to be theft or qualified theft. When both material and juridical possession of the thing is passed on to the offender, like in the case of an agent, misappropriation of the thing constiture estafa.

Problem 6:

The crime committed is qualified theft.

Under the law, qualified theft is committed when there is taking of property belonging to another, with intent to gain, done without the owner's consent, accomplished without violence or intimidation against person or forced upon things and if done with grave abuse of confidence. Here, as the bank teller, appropriating the money of the depositor for personal gain constitute qualified theft.

Problem 7:

A committed estafa.

The law provides that estafa is committed when both material and juridical possession of the thing appropriated was acquired by the offender. Here, A as co-owner, had juridical possession over the proceeds of the business venture. Appropriating the shares of B for his personal gain constitute estafa as provided for by law.

Problem 8:

The crime committed is estafa.

The offender, being an officer of the company, can be considered an agent of the latter. In case of an agent to whom both material and juridical possession have been transferred, misappropriation of the things or money received constitutes estafa.

Problem 9:

This principle was illustrated in the case against Mayor Asuncion of Ilocos.

Problem 10:

actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea means that the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty. This maxim is used to determine criminal liability of the accused. Unless the contrary is specified, every criminal offense requires both a criminal act and a criminal intention. Sans clear establishment of criminal intent, the accused cannot be held liable of the offense, unless otherwise specified.

Problem 11:

The crime committed by the accused is malversation of public funds.

Under the law, malversation of public funds is committed by a public officer having custody of the public funds by taking or misappropriating the same.

Here, the Postmaster appropriated for his own use the public funds under his custody. Hence, the accused committed malversation of public funds.

Problem 12:

No, the accused previously charged with intentional malversation can no longer be convicted of malversation by negligence. Doing so would amount to double jeopardy which is a violation of the rights of the accused.

Problem 13:

Here, the sheriff committed malversation of public funds.

The acts done by the sheriff thru deceit, amounts to taking of public funds for his personal use or gain. As a public officer, the can be held liable for malversation of funds under the law.

Problem 14

Here, the acts done amounts to violation of the graft and corrupt practices act and violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act. The accused public officials in this case, took advantage of their public office in order to benefit the drug trading activitiy in the Bilibid prison which is illegal under the law.

Problem 15

Corruption of public official is committed by the offender who offers or promises gifts to a public officer that will make the public officer liable for direct or indirect bribery under certain circumstances. Indirect bribery on the other hand is committed by a public officer who accepts gift offered to him by reason of his office.

Problem 16

In dubio pro reo is a principle in criminal law which means that when in doubt, for the accused. Under this principle, unless the guilt of the accused is proven beyond reasonable doubt, he cannot be made liable to the offense charged. In case of doubt, it would amoubnt to an acquittal of the accused.

Problem 17

Here, ISLAW shall be applied after taking into consideration all circumstances affecting criminal liability. It must be applied on the imposable penalty as provided for by law.

Under the ISLAW, courts are mandated to impose a sentence to fix minimum and maximum period of the penalty. Hence, imposing a straight penalty is a violation of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

Problem 18

Under the law, the following acts constitute concubinage: when a husband keep a mistress in the conjugal dwelling, or shall have sexual intercourse, under scandalous circumstances, with a woman whos is not his wife.

Problem 19

The jurisdiction is within the inferior courts not withstanding that the penaltly for the concubine is destiero. The inferior courts shall have jurisdiction over the case.

Problem 20

No, the contention of Datu Tawahig is not correct.

The accused is charged with the crime under the RPC. It is within the jurisdiction of the courts and not matters involving affairs of the tribe. Hence, the tribal court cannot assumed jurisdiction over the case as provided for by law.

Pamela Rubi-Anito

2020-12-07

Paula Bianca Eguia

Exam: midterm examination in criminal law december 4, 2020

Word count: 1962

Writing time: 195 minutes

Email: pb.eguia@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

Yes. Dela Renta may be prosecuted for malversation even if he had ceased to be an employee of PNB. Malversation is committed by any public officer who, by reason of the duties of his office, is accountable for public funds and property, who misappropriate such public funds or property. At the time of the commission of the offense, PNB was a government-owned and controlled corporation and since Dela Renta is a Regional Bank Auditor, he is considered a public officer. Any crime committed by a public officer is subject to the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.

Dela Renta may still be suspended pendente lite despite being employed in another public office at the time the crime was charged. The term office as contemplated under the law applies to any office which the officer might be currently occupying and not necessarily mean to be the same office or position in relation to which he is charged.

No. The motion to dismiss the complaint against the Deputy Ombudsman for the acts of lasciviousness should be denied because the Ombudsman is one of the impeachable officers included under the 1987 Constitution. Hence, Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction to take over the case. Further, Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the petition for disbarment against him since Judge Rod Reyes is a member of the Philippine bar. Thus, the two motion to dismiss shall be denied.

In this case, the trial court may award temperate damages and the amount will be P50,000.00 in crimes of homicide.

Petitioner's contention is incorrect. The compromise agreement entered into by the spouses does not circumvent the law since it constitutes as a separation of property which can be effected voluntarily or for sufficient cause subject to judicial approval. The compromise agreement is not subject to the condition of the validity of marriage nor is it dependent whether a crime is committed since it only deals with the agreement between parties to divide the properties under the conjugal partnership of gains. The separation of property that was done by virtue of the compromise agreement subsists even if the case of declaration of the nullity of marriage is still pending in court.

The crime committed is theft. Theft is committed by any person who with intent to gain but without violence or intimidation against persons or force upon things shall take personal property of another without the latter's consent. Since the defendant instead of pledging the ring, appropriated it for herself and sold it another, the taking thereof constitutes the crime of theft.

Material possession is the physical and actual possession over a thing while juridical possession means a possession which gives the transferee a right over the thing. If the material possession is transferred, the conversion of the property gives rise to the crime of theft. But if the material and juridical possession is transferred, the misappropriation of the property would constitute a crime of estafa.

The crime committed is qualified theft since there is an abuse of confidence that resulted injury on the part of the depositor when the teller appropriates it for personal gain or use. The teller only has material possession over the deposits of the bank and as a bank teller, she has occupied a position of confidence since her duty is to receive money to be deposited in the bank.

A committed the crime of theft. Theft is committed by any person who, with intent to gain without violence, intimidation against persons or force upon things, shall take personal property of another without the consent of the latter. Further, a crime of theft is committed when a person has material possession of a thing and he misappropriates it for his own benefit. As A took the share of B for his personal use and without the latter's consent and the facts did not state that it was taken with violence nor force upon things, then the crime committed is theft.

The crime committed is Estafa. Estafa through misappropriation is committed when: a personal property is received in trust for administration or under any duty to make delivery or return the same ; that there is conversion of such porperty by the person who has received it or denied to have received it; that the conversion or denial is to the injury of another and that there is demand for the return of the property. Further the law states that when money or personal property is received by the offender from the offended party, whether in trust, commission or for administration, the offender acquires both physical possession and juridical possession of the thing received. When he misappropriates or converts the thing for personal use and having gained both material and juridical possession, then it results to the crime of estafa.

This was reiterated in the case of Tabuena vs. Sandiganbayan.

10.

This means that an act does not make anyone guilty unless there is a criminal intent or a criminal mind. In order to convict an accused, it must be proved that the criminal act was carried out with a criminal intent. The conviction of the accused must not only rest upon the specific act which he committed but also is determined by his intention. This principle concludes that a mere commission of an act does is not sufficient to constitute a crime but it should be accompanied with the existence of wrongful intent.

11.

The crime committed is malversation. The Revised Penal Code defines malversation as any act committed by a public officer who, by reason of the duties of his office, is accountable for public funds or property, who shall appropriate the same or shall take or misappropriate or shall consent, or through his abandonment or negligence, permit any other person to take such public funds or property whether wholly or partially. The information as provided has all the elements of the crime of malversation as provided under the law. A postmaster is a public officer who intentionally misappropriated public funds shall be held liable for the crime of malversation.

12.

Yes. The law provides that malversation can be committed intentionally or through abandonment or negligence. Under the Revised Penal Code, the penalty in the crime of malversation is the same whether the commission is with intent or negligence. The mode of commission is immaterial in order to convict a person a crime of malversation since the law does not distinguish it.

13.

X committed direct bribery. Direct bribery is committed by any public officer who shall agree to perform an act constituting a crime, in connection with the performance of his official duties and in consideration of any offer, promise, present or gift received by such public officer, either personally or through the mediation of another. In this case, X as a sheriff, offered to X money in exchange of a favor that he could give him the garnished account which the latter accepted. By virtue of such circumstances, all the elements of direct bribery is present and X should be held liable.

14.

The crime committed is illegal drug trading. RA 9165 defines trading as transactions involving the illegal trafficking of dangerous drugs or controlled essential chemicals using electronic devices or acting as a broker in any of such transactions whether for money or any other consideration in violation of the law. The information state that the accused by the use of electronic devices,willfully and unlawfully trade and traffic dangerous drugs. It is immaterial whether there indeed a sale has been made because the law contemplates in illegal drug trading that the broker's job in bringing the buyer and seller together has been accomplished.

RTC has jurisdiction over the drug case. RA 9165 specifically provides that the RTC has the exlusive jurisdiction to try and hear cases involving violations of RA 9165. As the crime committed is illegal drug trading, the same is penalized under RA 9165, then the tribunal which has jurisdiction over the case is RTC.

15.

Direct bribery is committed by any public officer who shall agree to perform an act constituting a crime, in connection with the performance of his official duties and in consideration of any offer, promise, present or gift received by such public officer, either personally or through the mediation of another. Indirect bribery on the other hand is committed by any public officer who shall accept gifts offered to him by reason of his office. Corruption of a public official is committed by any person who shall have made the officers or promises or given the gifts or presents to the public officers. Unlike in direct and indirect bribery where it can only be committed by public officer, corruption of a public official may be committed by either a public or private person as the law defines it to be committed by any person.

16.

In dubio pro reo is a rule of lenity which means that when in doubt, rule for the accused. This principle applies when the court is faced with two different interpretations of the penal statute, one that is favorable and the other is prejudicial to the accused. This rule of lenity calls for the adoption of interpretation that is more favorable to the accused.

17.

The law states that if the offense is punished by a special law, then the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum that is fixed by law and the same rule shall apply in minimum term such that the minimum term shall not be less that the minimum prescribed by law.

Where the penalty for an offense under special law is not less than 6 months but not more than 3 years of imprisonment, the minimum penalty shall not be less than 6 months while the maximum penalty shall not exceed 3 years. But if the court sentenced the accused to 1 year of imprisonment or less then the Indeterminate Sentence Law will not apply and there is no more need to ffix the maximum penalty.

18.

Concubinage committed by a husband and his paramour are committed under any of the following three ways: (1) keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling which means that the paramour lives in the house of of the husband and wife; (2) having sexual intercourse under scandalous circumstance with a woman not his wife; and (3) cohabiting with the mistress in any other place.

19.

The MTC has jurisdiction to try the concubinage charge. The law provides that a crime punishable with the penalty of destierro is within the jurisdiction of inferior courts. Since the crime of concubinage requires that the offended party cannot institute criminal prosecution without including both the husband and concubine, the case of concubinage should be tried before the inferior courts in the interest of the orderly administration of justice.

20.

No, the contention is incorrect. Under the law, the rights accorded to indigenous people does not prevent the courts of law in taking cognizance of crimes involving indigenous people. The law does allow that the courts to be without jurisdiction over criminal proceedings in order that customary laws shall prevail. As crime is defined by law as an or ommission punishable by law, certainly the State's exercise of police power in order to maintain public order will not be overruled by indigenous people's customary laws and practices. The resolution issued by the Dadantulan Tribal Court does not derive any right to be exempted from criminal liability. The Courts are under no obligation to recognize such judgment of the tribe court since the trial court shalll rule on a person's liability with its own discretion and upon finding of facts and law applicable.

Paula Bianca Eguia

2020-12-07

Perigrino Varquez

Exam: midterm examination in criminal law december 4, 2020

Word count: 2110

Email: varquez.perigrino@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

1. No. The contention of Henry dela Renta is untenable. Under the law the commission of the offense during his tenure in office shall not be absolved by the mere fact that he was no longer connected in the office as it can still be prosecuted even if he has transferred his employment. In this case, Mr. dela Renta committed the offense of malversation of public funds while he was connected at PNB and later on transferred to PDIC his contention that the offense happened when he was still at the PNB is of no moment. The offense can still be prosecuted and will not absolve him. Hence, his contention is not tenable.

Mr. dela Renta can be suspended as provided by law when an employee who is under investigation and was charged in a court of law for an offense shall be preventively suspended. It is the rationale of the law that an officer or employee who was charged for his previous offense shall be preventively suspended while the case was filed in court to set as an example to the rest that wrongdoing in public office is penalized.

2. No. His motions are not meritorious. The disbarment proceeding is a separate offense because it has something to do with his moral fiber of being a member of the bar that at all times he must remain in good standing and it is a continuing requirement. The petition for disbarment is a sui generis and the Supreme Court can always acquire jurisdiction over his person. On the other hand, acts of lasciviousness are criminal in nature which can be filed separately before a court of law at it is penalized under the Revised Penal Code. Therefore, both his motions are not meritorious.

3. In the absence of receipts to substantiate the heirs' claim for an award of actual damages such as expenses for the wake and burial the court can award temperate damages in the amount of Ph50,000.00. The jurisprudence on this matter as provided by the Supreme Court that in the absence of proof such as receipts on the expenses incurred for the wake and burial of the deceased courts can award temperate damages in the amount of Ph50,000.00 and there is no need to prove by the heirs of the deceased.

4. The contention of the petitioner should be granted. Under the New Civil Code, the share of the guilty spouse in the conjugal assets who was convicted for the crime of adultery shall be forfeited in favor of the children or to the innocent spouse. In the given facts, the wife was convicted of the crime of adultery, the compromise agreement signed by the parties in the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage which was filed by the guilty spouse shall not benefit him otherwise it should sanction immorality as the disqualification will be defeated by a mere agreement of the parties. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner should be upheld.

a) Defendant committed the crime of estafa. Under the Revised Penal Code, when there is juridical possession on the defendant the crime committed is estafa. From the facts of the case, defendant received a finger ring from the offended party for the purpose of pledging it as a security for a loan of Ph5.00 but he sold it for Ph3,000.00. When the ring was entrusted to him there was juridical possession on him as he is considered as agent of the principal and that is to pledge the ring. As far as third person is concerned, the defendant has a right over the ring. Therefore, the crime committed is estafa and not theft.

b) Material possession means that it is only physical possession that a person has over the thing while in juridical possession the person has a right or condition over the thing and he can set up it against the real owner of the thing. It is relevant in the crimes of estafa or theft or qualified theft because when there is physical or material possession being exercised by the person, he can be liable only for the crime of simple theft or qualified theft if there is grave abuse of confidence. While in juridical possession, the possession is considered as the naked owner as he has right over the thing as it coupled with a contract or there is an agreement and he can set up it against the real owner. Whenever there is juridical possession, the person is liable for the crime of estafa.

6. The crime committed by a teller of a bank if he or she appropriates the money of a depositor is qualified theft. Under the law, the deposits made by the depositor are property of the bank and the teller being its employee has only physical or material possession over the deposits. Since there is employer-employee relationship between the two and the bank has reposed trust and confidence to its employee, there is therefore grave abuse of confidence committed by the teller against his/her employer and the crime committed is qualified theft.

7. A was absolved of the crime of estafa because of relationship. According to the law when there is co-ownership over the thing and a co-owner misappropriates the thing in the co-ownership to the prejudice of his co-owner or partner the crime is estafa. In the case at bar A and B are partners in a business venture. They are also brothers. Under the Revised Penal Code, when ascendants, decendants, brothers or sisters committed the crime of theft, estafa or malicious mischief it is an absolutory cause. A as partner in the business venture has juridical possession over the properties of the business and if he misappriates it for his personal gain he is liable for estafa. Considering that relationship is an absolutory cause in the crimes of theft, estafa and malicious mischief because of relationship as a brother of B he has therefore no criminal liability.

8. The accused Lina S. Velayo, as President of Alorasan Realty Development Corporation is liable for the crime of qualified theft. As president of the corporation, she was vested with trust and confidence by her employer and her representation that the taxes in the real property transactions entered into by the corporations shall be deducted and remitted to BIR instead she misappropriates it to her personal gain to the damage of the corporations. Having taken advantage of the trust reposed on her as president she manipulated the payments for her personal gain. She only had physical possession over the funds of the corporation when she misappropriate its as she has no right over it as she is only an employee. Hence, she is liable for the crime of qualified theft because there is grave abuse of confidence.

9. This case illustrates the principle on pro reo principle that whenever there is a doubt on the charged against the accused it shall be resolved in his favor. As in this case in the crime of malversation when there is unathorized payment and there is reasonable ground to believe that the public officer to whom payment was made and that it was made in good faith then he is not criminally liable but only civilly liable. It is a rule in penal laws that whenever there is doubt it shall be resolved in favor of the accused.

10. The maxim "actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea" means that when an act when committed there is no law yet punishing it no matter how criminal it is the person does not incur any criminal liability. This is applicable in resolving criminal cases because no matter how criminal the act is when there is no law punishing it the person will not incur any criminal liability for the act complained of.

11. The accused committed the crime of malversation of funds. The law provides that when a public officer is entrusted with the custody of funds or property by virtue of his office and he misapproapriates it for his personal gain and to the damage of the government he is liable for malversation of funds. As postmaster, he is an accountable public officer by virtue of his office and he is under the law obligated to safekeep the funds and property of his office. Having misappropriated the funds of his office, he is therefore liable for malversation of funds.

12. Yes. The accused can be convicted of malversation by negligence notwithstanding that he was charged of intentional malversation because under the law the accountable public officer is supposed to take care and safekeep the funds and property of his office in order not to prejudice the interest of the public. Thus, he can still be convicted of malversation by negligence.

13. X committed the crime of direct bribery. Under the law being a public officer and because of promise, reward or gift he agrees to perform an act constituting a crime or not in relation to his office, the officer is liable for the crime of direct bribery. X being a court sheriff he accepts the bribe in the amount of Ph10,000.00 given by Y in order to lift the garnishment of Y's bank account. Hence, X is liable for the crime of direct bribery.

14. The crime committed by De Lima is direct bribery. By virtue of her office she took advantage of it by demanding money from the high profile inmates. The gift, promise or reward was the consideration in order that her office will extend some sort of protection to the illegal trading in the National Penitentiary. She is in conspiracy to the illegal trading in the New Bilibid her office is supposed to enforce the law to stop the proliferation of illegal trading which is contrary to law. As decided by the Supreme Court, it is the Regional Trial Court which has jurisdiction over the case on illegal drug trading in view of its competence to decide the case.

15. Direct bribery is committed when the public officer agrees to perform an act constituting a crime or not to perform an act when the law requires him to perform an act in consideration of a promise, reward or gift. On the other hand, indirect bribery is committed when an officer demands a gift or reward by virtue of his/her office. While corruption of a public official is committed by the giver of a gift or reward.

16. The dubio pro reo principle means that whenever there is a doubt it shall be resolved in favor of the accused.

17.

a) The Indeterminate Sentence Law as applied in crimes punished by special laws that the minimum of the penalty as prescribed in the special laws shall be the minimum range of the penalty to be imposed and the maximum penalty as prescribed in the special laws shall be the maximum range of the penalty to be imposed in the maximum penalty.

b) Yes. The straight penalty of one year imposed by the judge is correct in the context of the Indeterminate Sentence Law because the law says the minimum penalty is the minumum range to be imposed and the maximum range is the maximum penalty to be imposed and it is valid.

18. The three (3) specific acts of concubinage by a husband are: having sexual intercourse of his paramour in an scandalous manner this means that the sexual intercourse is committed in a public place; cohabit his paramour in the conjugal dwelling, this means that the husband brings his paramour in the conjugal home and it is as if it his wife and third when they live together as husband and wife.

19. The court which has jurisdiction over the case of concubinage is the Municipal Trial Court because of the imposable penalty which is within the jurisdiction of the court. As ruled by the Supreme Court the imposable penalty is to be considered in acquiring the jurisdiction of the case of concubinage.

20. The contention of Ha Datu Tawahig is misplaced. He was charged of the crime of rape which is punished under law and it affects the interest of the state as the offended party. It has nothing to do with his being a member of indigenous community because the acts did not refer to culture and tradition of the indigenous people. The crime of rape is penalized because it affect the very interest of the people and the state. He is not immune for his action because it affects the penal laws of the state which should be penalized. Thus, his contention is misplaced.

Perigrino Varquez

2020-12-07

Prince Dave Santiago

Exam: midterm examination in criminal law december 4, 2020

Word count: 1668

Writing time: 186 minutes

Email: princedavesantiago@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

(1)

a. No. dela Ranta cannot be absolved of the crime he has committed with PNB. The crime of malversation cannot be disregarded even if the offender transferred from one office to another. During his employment, dela Ranta committed acts of malversationss over certain public funds with PNB when he managed to unearthed many irregularities and violatios through manipulation over certain accounts. The commissio of the crime during his emloyment with PNB is the basis of his conviction of malversation and not on the time when he already transferred to PDIC.

b. The motion of suspension filed by the prosecution has no merit because PNB has no longer interest on the employment of dela Ranta with PDIC. The suspension pendente lite is already moot because there is no one to suspend in this case since dela Ranta have already transferred to another employment no longer within the interest of PNB.

(2)

The motion to dismiss the complaint over the petition for disbarment is meritorious but not on the acts of lasciviousness. The jurisdiction of the Ombudsman are offenses committed by government employee in line to their function while in office. It is is not cognizable over their juridiction over the crimes against person. In the case, the act of lasciviousness is a crime against person not cognizable with the Office of the Ombudsman. However, the case of disbarment filed before the Supreme Court has merits on the ground of propriety and abuse of confidence in his office.

(3)

The court may award temperate damages to the heirs up to he extent of the expenses made for the wake of the deceased and those expenses relative to the litigation proceedings amounting to Php50, 000 in cases of homicide.

(4)

The conviction of a crime cannot sever marriage between spouses but the offending spouse can no longer acquire or get his/her share if the crime committed is a crime involving moral turpitude. In the case, the husband committed a crime of adultery or concubinage which is a crime that involves moral turpitude since it violates the moral and psychological state of a person because of disloyalty. Therefore, the motion to annul the compromise agreement is tenable for the guilt of the husband having committed a crime that prevented him to acquire his share from the conjugal assets.

(5)

a. The crime committe is Estafa with abuse of confidence. The said crime is committed when both material and juridical possession have been transferred to the agent or employee and misappropriated the property for its own use. In the case, the offended party transferred its material and juridical possession of the ring the defendant as his employee when the latter sold the finger ring to another with a higher price for his own use which is a different tranaction they have agreed.

b. Material possession is considered if a sum of money, the thing or property, is received by an employee by way of onerous title. Juridical possession is recognized when the employee received the sum of money owned by the employer by reason of his office. The relevance of material and juridical possession in discerning whether the crime is estafa or theft is that as long as the juridical possession is not transferred to a person havig his confidenc, then the crime committed remains theft or qualified theft as the case may be.

(6)

The teller of a bank committed the crime of estafa because the juridical possession is already tranferred to the teller by entrusting her to keep the money deposited. The trust imposed to her by th depositor gave her the juridical possession as well as the material possession. The moment she miappropriated the money deposited for her personal gain, the crime of estafa has been committed.

(7)

The crime committed is qualified theft. A business venture follows the law on partnership whereby two or more persons contributes money, property or industry. In this case, there is no transfer of juridical possession because the contribution was put in a mutual fund. The rule provides that if juridical possession is not transferred to another, a crime of theft or qualified theft is committed. Qualified theft is committed by A for defrauding his brother by way of taking the latter's share for his personal gain.

(8)

(9)

(10)

This legal maxim means that an act does not make one guilty unless there is criminal intent. This principle is applied in resolving criminal cases when the two elements are present: the guilty act and the guilty state of mind. In general, the act itself does make him guilty unless his intention is so. There must be a criminal intention and an unlawful act present to constitute a crime. If the intent is absent but there is an unlawful act, there can only be negligence on the part of the offender which may impos a lesser liability.

(11)

The accused committed the crime of malversation. To constitute this crime, the following requisites must concur: a. the offender is a public officer, b. the offender has custody of the public funds, c. the offender misappropriated a public funds, and d. the misapproprriation is for his own personal gain. In the case, the postmaster being a publif officer of the Municipality of San Juan is accountable to public funds be reason of his position in the collection of fees and charges. The postmaster willfully misappropriated the collections he made that is a public funds for his personal gain. The requisites concur all the instances presented in the case therefore, the postmaster has committed the crime of malversation.

(12)

Yes. An accused can still be held liable for malversation by neligence even if proven hat she has not misappropriated the public funds for personal case. Jurisprudence provides that the accused by her negligence simply created the opportunity for the misappropriation of funds by another. The act of negligence is the primary element that constitutes a malveration of funds by negligence if there is lack of consent in misappropriating the funds for personal gain.

(13)

X committed the crime of estafa by abuse of confidence. This crime is committed when a. there is a false pretense or fraudulent representation, b. the offended party relied on the false pretense, and c. the act causes damage to the offended party. In the case, Y imposed confidence to X for the garnishment which the latter accepted. However, he made false pretenses by informing the bank that the garnishment has been lifted and that Y relied on the false pretense made by X. Therefor, X is guilty of the crime of estafa.

(14)

The crime committed in the case is illegal drug trading. There might be a thin line similarity between direct bribery but the latter is merged to the offense of illegal drug trading because its commission is incidental to it. The money given to Secretary de Lima is incidental to the crime of illegal drug trading absorbed in the crime of direct bribery.

(15)

Direct bribery is committed by a public official who accepts or promise by himself in view of committing a crime, or in consideration of te execution of an act that is unjust or to refrain from doing something. Indirect bribery on the other hand simply committed by a public official who accepts an offer or gifts by reason of his office.

(16)

The in dubio pro reo principle follows the rule of lenity when the court is faced with two possible interpretations of penal statute however the rule calls for the adoption of an interpretation which is more favorable to the accused. This principle is applie in the case of Valdez who committed the crime of Malversation thru Falsification of Documents by way of granting her the bail as a matter of right instead of charging her the crime of plunder which is a heinous crime. Therefore, the principle favored the accuse simple because penal statutes are construed strictly against the State and liberally in favor of the accused.

(17)

a. Indeterminate Sentence Law is applied to crimes punished by special laws in a way that the Court shall sentence the accused the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same. For example, a penalty is one year to five years. The indeterminate sentence may be one year to three years or three years to five years.

b. No. Since the accused pleaded guilty on the offense charged, his imposable penalty is reduced to one degree lower or a medium period which imposes a period of two years minimu up to four years as maximum. The indeterminate sentence of straight imprisonment of one year is not correct because the law provides that it should not be lower to the minium period prescribed by the special law that has been violated.

(18)

The three specific acts of concubinage by a husband are the following:

a. Shall keep the mistress from the conjugal dwelling. This acts explains that the mistress must be living at the conjugal dwelling of the spouse even for a short period of time but it does not apply when she occssionally comes to spend the night;

b. Shall have sexual intercourse with the mistress under scandalous circumstances. This act explains when the husband and the mistress has been seen in public flaunting their illicit and immoral relationship that shocks the public for such conduct; and

c. Cohabit with the mistress in any other plaee. This act only applies if the husband and the mistress live together as husband and wife.

(19)

The MTC has jurisdition to the crime of concubinage. The law provides that a crime punishable by destierro is cognizable within the jurisdiction of inferior courts. Since the crime of concubinage requires the prosecution of both the husband and the concubine, the case should be tried before the inferior courts following the interest of the order of administration of justice.

(20)

Prince Dave Santiago

2020-12-07

Renante Carumba

Exam: midterm examination in criminal law december 4, 2020

Word count: 960

Writing time: 182 minutes

Email: renantecarumba153@gmail.com

Class: Political Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Batasta

No. Dela Ranta's contention is not tenable. An accountable public officer is liable notwithstanding he was already employed in another agency of the government. the fact remains that at the time of the commission of the crime, he was then an accountable public officers.

Yes, Dela Ranta may be suspended. The law requires that after the issues have been joined and when the evidence of guilt is strong, an accused may be preventively suspended. Here, the fact that Dela Ranta was no longer an employee of PNB at the time the criminal action was filed is of no moment becuase the order of he suspension of an accused facing criminal case before the Sandiganbayan is mandatory.

2. No. both motions are not meritorious.

The lkind of damages that a trial court may award to the heirs is moral damages in the amount of Php50,000.00. Likewise, the court may also award temperate damages to the heirs in the amount Php50,000.00. These damages can be award in the crime of Homicide.

The contention of the wife is without legal basis. Under the law, the only time a guilty spouses is disqualified to get his share in the conjugal assets is when there is a decree of legal separation and the husband is being the guilty spouses. Here, the declaration of the absolute nulllity he ground of Psychological incapacity will not itself disqualify the husband of his share in the conjugal assets, not being a decree of legal separation.

a. Defendant committed the crime of Estafa. Under the law, the possessor of the pledged property by pledgor is considered as a trustee and onced the principal obligation is extingusihed, the thing pledged is returned by the pledgee to the pledor. Here, defendant is merely a trustee of the thing pledged, therefore he holds it for the benefit of pledgor. Considering that he sold the thing pledged. he committed an abuse of confidence. Hence, defendant committed the crime of Estafa.

b/ Material possession and juridical possession may be distinguished from each other, the fomrer, the possession refers only to a mere physical possession of the property without any other right or obligation, while in juridical possession, the possession gives the transferee a right over the thing.

The conceopt pf material possession and juridical possession has a significant in the crime of estate or theft or qualified theft. Thus, if what has been delivered is only material possession, it will only give rise to the crime of theft or qualified theft as the case may be. However, if what has been delivered is not only material but also juridical possession, it will give rise to the crime of estafa.

If the teller of a bank appropriates the money of a depositor for personal gain or use, the crime committed is qualified theft. Under the law, when what was delivered is only material possession and the possessor appropriate for himself the money received, he is liable for the crime of qualified theft and not estafa. In case instant, the teller had a mere material or physical possession, she held the funds in behalf of the clients. the teller has no independent right which he can set up against the clients. the tellerwas just a mere cash custodian. Hence, for want of juridical possession, the crime committed is qualified theft.

A did not commit any crime. Case law provides that if a partner contributed or the capital invested was for a general partner and the other partner appropriated the capital for his personal use,the latter's liability is only civil not criminal. in the case instant, the money contrubuted or invested was only for general purpose and not for specific person, A did not commit any crime, A is only civilly liable.

Lina Velayo committed the crim of Estafa. settled is the rule that when the money or other personal property is received by the from the offended party in trust or for commission, the accused acquires not only material but juridical possession of the money of other personal property received. Here, the accused was not merely a mere employee but being a former president of the corporatio, as such, having control of the funds being received for her own representation which she subsequently misappropriated for her personal use is liable for breach of trust. Hence, she is criminally liable for estafa.

10.

The latin maxim Actus Non Facit Reum, Nisi Mens Sui Real has been legall understood as Evil intent unites with unlawful act so that a crime must exist.

In resolving a criminal case, it is not enough that there must be a guilty mind must be shown which is merely a state of mind. in order for a crime to exist, the mens rea must br coupled with external or overt in order to judge one's criminal liabilty

12.

Yes. If an accused is charged with intentional malversation, he can be convictged of Malversation by negligence. Under the law, the crime of Malversation can be committed either by intentionally or by negligence/ If it can be proved by evidence that the mode of perpetrarting the crime of Malversation is through a negligence because the penalty prescribed by law in the crime of malversation is the same regardless it was committed through negligence or it was intentionally committed.

13. X committed the crime of Direct Bribery. Under the law, if a public officer receives a monetary consideration for doing something which does not constitute a crime can be beld liable for the crime of Direct Bribery. Here, when X actually received the amount of Phip10,000. from Y after the latter withdrawn the deposit through the help of X, the crime of direct bribery was already consummated

Renante Carumba

2020-12-07

REY GAVINO CADAG

Exam: midterm examination in criminal law december 4, 2020

Word count: 1133

Email: reygavinocadag@gmail.com

Class: REFRESHER

Teacher: JUDGE RIC BASTASA

1. No. the contention of dela Renta is not correct. It is because the crime of Malversation of Public Funds was committed at the time he was still an employee of the bank. In criminal cases, jurisdiction of the crime and its application retro act at the time the crime is committed.

He coud be suspended because he is a government employee of the PDIC which is under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan all goverment employees committed a crime of graft and corruption in relation to their duties and responsibiities and in order not to affect the investigation upon him.

2. Yes. the motion filed by Deputy Ombusman is meritorious because the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over an impeachable officer. they are only removed from office through impeachment. The Supreme Court wil take cognizance only when there is grave abuse of disrection amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in any instrumentality or official of the government in rendering the decision.

3. In case actual damages cannot be awarded in cases of Homicide. the award is civil indemnity of P50,000 moral damages P50,000 and exemplary damages of P50,000.00 can be awarded to the offended party.

4. The order of the court declaring the private respondent guilty of the crime of adultery, The respondent is not entitled to the share in the conjugal assets and the assets will be given in favor to their children as provided under the New Civi Code.

5. The crime committed is Estafa because of deceit committed against the offended party.

b. Material possession of a thing means that the person hold the thing in concept of a theft while juridical possession of a thing when the law gives the person the right even against the owner same in a concept of a mortgagee or a lessee during the duration of the contract or law.

6. The teller of a bank committed a crime of Qualified Theft when he appropriates depositor's money because he is an employee of the bank and there is a trust and confidence which the element of qualified theft exist.

7. A committed the crime of Theft because he took the money without the consent of B. and being a partner but not a servant in order for and tobe a crime of qualified theft.

8. The accused committed a crime of Malversation of Private Funds because he misappropriate private money for his owned personal use and benefits.

9. Good faith in the case of Malversation will apply because in Malversation an officer can be convicted of Malversation by negligence and with good faith it will negate criminal intent in the part of the accused.

b. In malversation where the accountable officer embezzled the amount, his act of doing is honesty entered by him but if in doing his is forced against his will because of threat by her/his superior. the defense of good faith will negate criminal intent.

10. Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea this latin maxim means that a person is not guity of a crime when he is in good faith and he has no intent of doing wrong because his mind was not in accord to his action.

b. The act of the person in good faith in a crime committed applies only in intentionable felonies under the Revised Penal Code but in felonies under the special law, good faith is not a defense.

11. The accused committed the crime of Malversation of Public Funds because the information provides that he is accountable officer and misappropriated, misapply, embezzled and coverted the money to his own personal use and benefits which all the elements of Malversation applies.

12. Yes. the accused could be convicted of malversation by negligence if he is charged with intentitional malversation because the malversation by negligence is necessary included in the the provision and if it is proven that it is by negligence of the accused, the conviction is proper.

13. The crime committed by X is Bribery because the sheriff X in relation to his duty accepted the consideration which cause damage to the bank.

14. the crime committed by Sec. Leila De Lima and her cohorts is Illegal Drug trading which falls under Sec. 5 of Art.II of the RA. 9165 because they willfully and unlawfully trade and traffic dangerous drug amounting to 5 million pesos.

B. Jurisdiction ver the crime is the Regional Tria Court of the City of Muntilupa because jurisdiction of the place where the crime is committed.

15. in Direct Bribery the officer the virtue of his office perform an act in consideration of money while in indirect bribery the officer accepted the consideration even without the person asking him to do something in his favor.

b. Attempt to corrupt a public official is a crime when an individual attempted to indulge a public officer to commit a crime by giving the officer something of value and for the officer to do an act illegal.

16. Dubio pro reo principle applies when the evidence of the prosecution and the defense are equally balance, then the scale will tilt in favor of the accused.

b. In thecase of PP vs. Luzviminda Valdes

17. Under the crime punishable by Special Law, the indeterminate sentence is applied as if the penalty of the crime imposed same as in the Revised Penal Code, the maximum is the penalty imposed by the law and the minimum is one degree lower but if the penalty of the crime imposed is not same with the Revised Penal Code then Straight Penalty is applied.

b. No. the trial judge is not correct because the impossable penalty of the crime of Vilation of RA No. 123456 follows the nomenclature of the penalty prescribed under the Revised Penal Code, then the Indeterminate Sentence Law will apply.

18. The 3 act of the husband in concubinage.

first. he is living with his paramour under the same roof.

second , he with his paramour engaged in sex under scandalous manner

third. he is living with a woman not his wife.

19. The jurisdiction to hear concubinage is the Municipal Trial Court because in the crime of concubinage both the husband and the concubine are jointly tried and it is absurd if the husband whose penalty imposable is under the jurisdiction of the MTC who is the author of the crime and yet the concubine is tried before the REgional Trial Court who is only an accomplished. hence they should be trial both under the MTC.

20. No. the contention of Ha Datu Tawahig is not correct because criminal prosecution is a crime against the state and criminal cases cannot be compromised. it is only the civil aspect can be compromised. The principle of Dura lex sed lex.

REY GAVINO CADAG

2020-12-07

ROJEAN CULANAG

Exam: midterm examination in criminal law december 4, 2020

Word count: 1763

Writing time: 193 minutes

Email: rojeanculanag.rc@gmail.com

Class: CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW

Teacher: JUDGE RIC BASTASA

1.)

A.) No, Dela Renta's contention is untenable.

The Supreme Court has held that malversation is committed from the very moment that an accountable public officer misappropriates public funds and fails to satisfactorily explain his inability to produce the public funds he received.

Here, Dela Renta is clearly an accountable public officer. Being hired by the PNB as Regional Bank Auditor, certainly, he has custody over the funds of the bank. The fact that he was no longer an employee of the PNB at the time of the filing the charged is immaterial. What is important is that he misappropriated the funds under his control and custody while he was still the Regional Bank Auditor of the PNB.

Thus, Dela Renta's contention is untenable.

B.) Dela Renta can be suspended pending the decision of the Sandiganbayan.

The Supreme Court has held that the Sandiganbayan may suspend a public officer charged before it once the issues have been joined and when the evidence of guilt is strong.

Hence, Dela Renta can be suspended before the Sandiganbayan.

2.) No, both motions are not meritorious.

The Office of the Ombudsman has jurisdiction over Judge Rod Reyes for the charged of acts of lasciviousness. Being an appointed Deputy Ombudsman, he is certainly a public officer who committed the said crime by reason of his office. Thus, the Office of the Ombudsman has jurisdiction over his person and office.

Also, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the charged of disbarment since Judge Rod Reyes is a member of the Bar.

Well-settled is the rule that the Supreme Court has authority to discipline members of the bar and disbarment is one of the modes of disciplining lawyers who committed acts in violation of their oath as lawyers.

Thus, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the charged of disbarment.

3.) The Supreme Court has held that the damages that can be awarded for the crime of homicide, are moral damages and temperate damages. The amount of moral and temperate damages would be 50,000.00 each.

Actual damages cannot be awarded since the amount spend for the wake and burial are not substantiated by receipts.

4.) The contention of the petitioner has no legal basis.

Well-settled is the rule that the spouses is entitled to their respective shares in the conjugal partnership once the marriage is dissolved. However, the spouse who caused the dissolution of the marriage will be deprived only of the net share in the conjugal partnership but not the whole share.

Thus, even if the respondent was found guilty in the criminal case for adultery, he is still entitled to recieve his share in the conjugal assets.

5.)

A.) Defendant committed the crime of estafa since he has juridical possession over the thing at the time the offended party delivered it to him.

The Supreme Court has held that if the possession of the property by the offender arouse from a contract or agreement, then the possessor has juridical possession over it.

Here, the offended party delivered the ring in trust to the offender for the purpose of pledging it. As such, what has been transferred to the offender was not only material possession but also, juridical possession.

Thus, Defendant committed the crime of esta.

B.) Material possession means the actual physical possession of the thing, where the possessor does not have a better right over the thing than the owner while juridical possession exists where the possession of the thing by the offender arouse from a contract or agreement which he can set up even against the owner.

These two concepts are relevant in the sense that if what has been transferred to the offender was only material possession, then the misappropriation of the thing would only constitute theft. However, if what has been transferred is not only material possession but also juridical possession, then the misappropriation of the thing would constitute estafa.

6.) The crime committed would be qualified theft since the teller merely acquires material possession over the money deposited.

The Supreme Court has held that payment made by the depositor to the teller is payment to the bank and the teller is merely a custodian who has no right to retain the funds as against the bank.

Hence, the taking of the funds of the depositor by the teller of the bank without the consent of the bank constitutes qualified theft.

7.) A committed the crime of qualified theft since only material possession was given to A with respect to the share of B.

The Supreme Court has held that material possession means the actual physical possession of the thing, where the possessor does not have a better right over the thing than the owner.

Here, A has no better right with respect to the share of B. Being partners, A has the obligation to give the share of the proceeds to B.

Thus, by taking the share of B without his consent, he is liable for theft in the qualified form since there exists a trust and confidence in partnership.

8.) The crime committed by the accused is estafa since she acquires not only material possession but also juridical possession of the funds.

The Supreme Court has held that if what has been transferred is not only material possession but also juridical possession, then the misappropriation of the thing would constitute estafa.

Here, it was VELAYO who personally assumed the obligation and assured WJC that she would withhold and remit the taxes to the BIR and because of this assurance, WJA was induced to entrust the funds to VELAYO.

Thus, the crime committed by the accused VELAYO is estafa.

9.) The principle that good faith in malveration will extinguished the criminal liability of the accused applies in a case where the accused paid to his co-employees the public funds in his custody believing in good faith that it is not prohibited under any law and that he had not received any single centavo for the said funds and also, his co-employees were able to return the said amount to him after disallowance was made by the COA.

In this situation, the accused should be acquitted for the crime of malversation because the misappropriation was made in good faith and the accused was able to return the public funds to the government.

10.) The term actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea means that an act does not make anyone guilty unless there is a criminal intent.

In resolving criminal cases, the court must, before convicting an accused, ascertain that the criminal act was carried out by the accused with a criminal intent.

Thus, the mere commission of a criminal act is not sufficient to constitute a crime. It mut be coupled the criminal intent of the accused. Absent of this criminal intent, the court must acquit the accused.

11.) The crime committed by the accused is malversation.

The Supreme Court has ruled that malversation is committed when the following elements are present; (a) the offender is a public officer; (b) he had custody or control of funds or property by reason of the duties of his office; (c) the said funds or property were public funds and he is accountable for it; and (d) he misappropriated the said public funds or through negligence, allow or permitted another to take them.

Here, all the elements of malversation are present. The accused is a public officer since he is a postmaster; by reason of the duties of his office, he acquires possession of the said funds; the funds in his possession is a public funds since it belongs to the post office; and he misappropriated it for his personal use and benefit.

Thus, the crime committed by the accused is malversation.

12.) Yes, the accused can be convicted of malversation by negligence even if he is charged of intentional malversation.

The Supreme Court has held that malversation can be committed either in dolo or culpa and whether malversation is intentional or negligence is of no moment since the same is only a mode of committing the crime of malversation.

Also, well-settled is the rule that when there is variance between the offense charge in the complaint or information and that proved and the offense as charged is included in or necessarily includes the offense proved, the accused can be convicted of the offense proved which is necessarily included in the offense charged or the offense charged which is included in the offense proved.

Thus, the accused can be convicted of malversation by negligence even if he is charged of intentional malversation.

13.) The crime committed by X is direct bribery.

The Supreme Court has held that direct bribery is committed when a public officer accepts an offer or promise or receives a give or present with a view of committing a crime or in consideration of the execution of an act which does not constitute a crime but is unjust.

Here, X, who is a sheriff accepted the amount of 10,000 offered by Y in consideration of informing the bank that the garnishment order was already lifted and which amount was offered to him by reason of his duties.

Thus, the crime committed by X is direct bribery.

14.)

15.) Direct bribery is committed when a public officer accepts an offer or promise or receives a give or present with a view of committing a crime or in consideration of the execution of an act which does not constitute a crime but is unjust.

Indirect bribery, it is committed by the public officer by his mere acceptance of any gift by reason of his office without being required to perform an act.

Corruption of public official is committed by any person who gives any gift or promise to any public official.

There is a crime of attempted corruption of public official when there has been already a meeting of the minds between the public officer and the giver concerning the gift to be given by the public officer and later on, the public officer reported the act of the giver, then upon the arrest of the giver, the crime he committed was only attempted corruption of public officer.

16.) The in dubio pro reo principle means that when the criminal statute is susceptible of two or more interpretations, one in favor of the accused and the other in favor of his conviction, the scale of justice must be tilted in favor of the accused.

ROJEAN CULANAG

2020-12-07

Vera Nataa

Exam: midterm examination in criminal law december 4, 2020

Word count: 1451

Writing time: 209 minutes

Email: vnataa@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

1.a.

The contention of Renta is untenable. He can still be prosecuted for malversation even if his employment with PNB has already ceased. Malversation is committed when any public official is guilty of misappropriation or malversation of public funds or property which he is accountable for in cases when by reason of his office, appropriate the same or consent to misappropriate, or through abandonment or negligence, permit others to take such funds or property.

1.b.

Renta may still be suspended pending such litigation despite his employment with diffirent public office which is the PDIC. It is not necessary that the accused is currently holding the same position in the same office for such conviction.

The motion to dismiss the complaint for acts of lasciviousness and petition for disbarment should be denied. As Deputy Ombudsman, he is a member of the bar, thus, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the petition for disbarment.

The trial court may award exemplary and moral damages to the heirs amounting to P75,000 for each damages.

The Compromise Agreement entered between the parties voluntarily is valid. Parties may enter in a compromise agreement, subject to the rights of other creditors, to effect separation of property as approved by the court. The contention of the petitioner that such agreement signed by them has to be annulled on the ground that the respondent was already found guilty in the criminal case is untenable.

5.a.

The crime of qualified theft is committed.

5.b.

Material possession or physical possession implies that such possession does not give the holder the right over the property, but as a mere custodian. Juridical possession, on the other hand, constitutes the right over the thing which may be set against the owner. One of the elements of estafa is that the offender has received the property of another in trust or for administration, hence, acquires material and juridical possession of the this. Subsequent misappropriation of the same thing would constitute a crime of estafa. Absent such juridical possessio, may only be liable for theft or qualified theft if there was abuse of confidence.

The crime committed by the teller is qualified theft. The elements of the crime constitute the taking of personal property which belongs to another without the latter's conset, with the intent to gain, and that there was abuse of confidence. The bank teller, as mere custodian, she has no juridical possession which gives her the right over the money. She only acquired physical possession over the property, hence, such misappropriation constitutes the crime of qualified theft.

The crime committed by A is qualified theft. The elements of the crime are present in this case. A took the share of B for his own personal use. As partners, their relationship is bound with trust and confidence. When A lied to B and took his share, there was already abuse of confidence. Hence, the crime is qualified theft.

The crime of estafa is committed. The elements of the crime included the receipt of the property in trust or administration which involves material and juridical possession, that there was misappropriation which cause injury to another, and that there was demand for such return.

In this case, all the elements of estafa are present. Velayo defrauded and deceived WJA Holding, Inc and received from WJA a sum of money which she misapplied, misappropriated and converted to her own personal use and benefit, and that despite repeated demand made upon her, accused failed to comply. Thus, she must be held criminally liable for such breach of trust.

This principle is well illustrated in the case of Tabuena v. Sandiganbayan. In this case, Tabuena received a memorandum from the President with the instruction to help the release several amounts for MIAA which was questioned by the Sandiganbayan, alleging that Tabuena committed malversation of funds of MIAA. The Court ruled in favor of Tabuena.

Applying the principle that good faith in the payment of public funds relieves a public officer from the crime of malversation. Not every unauthorized payment of public funds is malversation. There is malversation only if the public officer who has custody of public funds should appropriate the same, or shall take or misappropriate or shall consent, or through abandonment or negligence shall permit any other person to take such public funds. In this case, the order of such disbursements emanated from the President himself.

10.

Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea means that there is no crime committed when the offender acted without any criminal intent. Thus, to constitute a crime, such act or omission must be accompanied with the intent to commit the same.

11.

The crime allegedly committed is malversation. Under the RPC, any public official is guilty of misappropriation or malversation of public funds or property which he is accountable for in cases when by reason of his office, appropriate the same or consent to misappropriate, or through abandonment or negligence, permit others to take such funds or property.

In this case, the accused Postmaster willfully, unlawfully and feloniously and with grave abuse of confidence, misappropriate, misapply, embezzle and convert to his own personal use and benefit the public funds collected and received by reason of his position, in the way of fees, charges and stamps.

12.

Yes. Malversation may be committed either intentionally or by negligence. Despite these modes of committing such crime, the same crime of malversation is still committed which must be convicted.

13.

The crime committed by X is direct bribery. The crime of direct bribery is committed when the accused is a public officer, he received some gifts in consideration of his commission of some crime in relation to his official duties as public officer. As court sheriff, Mr. X has the duty to administer such garnishment. His act of inteference in his capacity constitutes such crime.

14.

The crime committed is direct bribery. The jurisdiction over drug-related cases is exclusively within the RTC.

15.

Direct bribery constitutes acts which a public officer received gifts, presents or promise from another in consideration of committing an offense in relation to the exercise of his official duty as public officer. Indirect bribery, on the other hand, usually does not involve any agreement between the public officer and the giver to commit such offense, such commission of the offense in relation to his office is not necessary, it is sufficient that the public officer accepts the gifts offered by reason of his office.

Corruption of a public official is committed by the private person who offers gifts, presents or promises to public officers by reason of his office.

16.

In the case of People v. Valdez, in dubio pro reo principle applies when a court is confronted with two possible interpretations, one which is prejudicial to the accused and one which is favorable to him. The rule shall lean towards such interpretation which is more lenient to the accused. This principle is closely related to the rule of lenity.

17.a.

The Indeterminate Sentence Law is mandatorily applied for crimes punishable by special laws. The objective of such application is to afford the convict to serve his minimum sentence to qualify him for release in parole. Thus, the minimum and maximum penalties must be definite for proper determination of such eligibility.

17.b.

The imposition of a straight penalty of imprisonment for one year by the trial judge is a violation to the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The law provides that all criminal offenses must have definite imposition of minimum and maximum penalties. It is mandatory.

18.

Under the RPC, the following are the 2 specific acts of concubinage by a husband: (1) the act of cohabiting with a woman who is not his wife in any other place, (2) keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling, and (3) the act of having sexual intercourse with a woman not his wife.

19.

The crime of concubinage is within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the inferior courts. Considering that under the RPC, the offended party cannot institute criminal prosecution without including both the guilty parties, it is necessary that the husband and the concubine must be prosecuted together despite having different penalties respectively.

20.

The contention of Ha Datu Tawahig is untenable. The crime of rape is an offense against the public. It is a breach of peace and order of the people in the community. One cannot raise the defense that IPRA compels the courts to desist from taking cognizance of the case involving IPs. It is the inherent power of the State to prosecute and punish crimes to maintain social order. The law never intends to fail justice.

Vera Nataa

2020-12-07

Virgilio Encabo

Exam: midterm examination in criminal law december 4, 2020

Word count: 1079

Writing time: 184 minutes

Email: jing86virenc@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law

Teacher: Judge Ric

1. No, Dela Rosa's contention is not tenable. The jurisdiction of the Court is not lost by the mere fact of that the respondent public official had ceased in office during the pendency of the case.

He may be suspended by his employer in the PDIC only after judgment has become final and executory because the agency employer is bound to enforce such decision even pending appeal.

2. The motions are not meritorious. The complaint for acts of lasciviousness is a criminal offense but if the same is committed in relation to the offense then the Office of the Ombudsman has jurisdiction over the case. Therefore, the motion to dismiss in regard to this case is meritorious since the Ombudsman has jurisdiction over the person.

With respect to motion to dismiss the disbarment case, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over his person being an officer of the Court.

3. In the crime of homicide, the heirs can claim Civil indemnity in the amount of 100,000; Moral damages in the amount of 100,0000 and Exemplary damages in the amount of 100,000. Where there is no proof of receipt for the wake and burial, the law has provided the amount of 50,000 as temperate damages.

4. A compromise agreement cannot be had in criminal case and more so after conviction has already been rendered. The conjugal assets should belong to the innocent spouse.

5a. The crime committed is Estafaa with abuse of confidence.

b. Juridical possession is a possession which gives the transferee a right over the thing while in material possession, there is the actual physical possession of the personal property.

6. The crime committed is Estafa by misappropriation. This is committed by misappropriating to the prejudice of another, the money received by the offended in trust or for administration.

7. A committed the crime of Estafa.

8. The crime committed in this case is Estafa through misappropriation under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code. The court noted that when the money, goods, or any personal property is received by the offended from the offended party in trust or on commission of for administration, the offender acquires both the material or physical possession and juridical possession of the thing received.

9. The case was illustrated in Tabuena vs. People. Tabuena and Peralta malversed the funds of the Manila. International Airport in the amount of 55 million during their incumbency. The Court Acquitted Luis Tabuena and Peralta of the crime of Malversation.

10. actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea is a latin maxim which expounds a basic principle in criminal law that a crime is not committed if the mind of the person performing the act complained of be innocent. This is applied to resolve a criminal case where intent is wanting. So, if it is proved that the accused committed the criminal act charged, it will be presumed that the act was done with criminal intention.

11. The crime allegedly committed is Malversation of Public Funds. In this crime, the offender is a public officer, being postmaster of the municipality of San JUan Southern Leyte; He had the custody or control of the funds; those funds were public funds; and he appropriated the said funds.

12. Yes. Malversation is committed either by intentionally or by negligence but in one case, the court ruled that an accused charged with willful malversation can be validly convicted for malversation through negligence where the evidence sustains the latter mode of perpetrating the offense.

13. The crime committed by X is Direct Bribery. Direct Bribery is committed by public officer who accepts an offer or promise or received a gift or present by himself or through another, such an offer or promise, gift, or present be accepted by the public officer, and that the offender agreed to perform an act in connection with the performance of his official duties.

14. The Tribunal which has jurisdiction is the Regional Trial Court because it has jurisdiction over the prosecution for violation of Dangerous drugs.

15. Direct Bribery may be distinguished from Indirect Bribery, in this wise. In both the Direct Bribery and Indirect Bribery, the public officer receives a gift.

In Direct Bribery, the act desired by the briber to be done by the public officer is in connection with the performance of the latter's official duties, while in indirect bribery the gifts are offered and received by reason of the office. In direct bribery, mere promise of a gift is sufficient; while in indirect bribery, it is necessary that the public officer actually recieves the gifts offered to him by reason of his office. In direct bribery, the offender agrees to perfrom an act or refrain from doing something because of the gift or promise, while in indirect bribery, it is not necessary that the officer should do the particular act.

16. The phrase " in dubio pro reo" means that a defendant may not be convicted by the court when doubt about his or her guilt remain. In People vs. Luzviminda, the court granted Valdez the right to bail due to doubt on the commission of the offense.

17. The Indeterminate Sentence Law is applied in crimes punished by special laws, in this manner: If the offense is punished by any other law, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by that law, and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same.

18. Under Article 334 of the Revised Penal Code the following specific acts are:

That the married man committed any of the following acts:

1. By keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling;

2. By having sexual intercourse, under scandalous circumstances, with a woman who is not his wife; or

3. By cohabiting with a woman who is not his wife in any other places.

19. The court which has the jurisdiction on concubinage is the Municipal Trial Court but since the penalty of the concubine is destierro the jurisdiction rest upon the Regional Trial Court as it exercises jurisdiction over criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court.

20. The contention of Ha Datu Tawahig is not correct. The IPRA Law does not provide that the jurisdiction of the courts of law are to be abandoned in favor of the customary laws. The protection of the indigenous peoples will not deprived courts of jurisdiction over criminal offenses.

Virgilio Encabo

Sunday, December 6, 2020

students' answers in criminal law review

Agapito Balili

Exam: midterm examination in criminal law december 4, 2020

Word count: 0

Email: sanbasec.balili@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law

Teacher: Atty. Ric Bastasa

Agapito Balili

Exam: midterm examination in criminal law december 4, 2020

Word count: 0

Email: sanbasic.balili@gmail.com

Class: criminal law

Teacher: Atty. Ric Bastasa

Agapito2 balili

Exam: midterm examination in criminal law december 4, 2020

Word count: 1185

Email: sanbasec.balili@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law

Teacher: Atty. Ric Bastasa

Aisha Mie Faith Fernandez

Exam: midterm examination in criminal law december 4, 2020

Word count: 1392

Writing time: 177 minutes

Email: mie.aisha23@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

Ameliano Himang

Exam: midterm examination in criminal law december 4, 2020

Word count: 1749

Email: mhelghimang@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law Review Class

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

Anilyn Evangelista

Exam: midterm examination in criminal law december 4, 2020

Word count: 1062

Writing time: 165 minutes

Email: anilyn_evangelista114@yahoo.com

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

Ariel Acopiado

Exam: midterm examination in criminal law december 4, 2020

Word count: 2211

Writing time: 182 minutes

Email: spitifirea211@gmail.com

Class: JD - IV Criminal Law

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

Arnold Bongcayao

Exam: midterm examination in criminal law december 4, 2020

Word count: 1191

Writing time: 160 minutes

Email: arnoldbongcayao@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

Bobby Borces

Exam: midterm examination in criminal law december 4, 2020

Word count: 2193

Writing time: 186 minutes

Email: borcesbobby@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

Cherrie Mae Aguila-Granada

Exam: midterm examination in criminal law december 4, 2020

Word count: 1588

Email: cherriemae.aguila@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

Christian Val G Dionglay

Exam: midterm examination in criminal law december 4, 2020

Word count: 1148

Writing time: 178 minutes

Email: christianval4680@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric S Bastasa

cyrus tingcang

Exam: midterm examination in criminal law december 4, 2020

Word count: 1574

Writing time: 171 minutes

Email: cyrust2011@gmail.com

Class: 4th year Juris Doctor