Criminal Law Finals Exam

Jose Rolly B.
Gonzaga
Criminal Law Review
Atty. Bernard Dagcuta – Final Examination
I.
In justifying circumstances, the law provides that the act done by the accused is legal in the eyes of the
law. Since the act is legal, there is no criminal liability or civil liability. However, in Exempting
Circumstances, what is to be considered is not the act, but the circumstances that had been present that
resulted to the act. When one is exempted, he is not criminally liable, but civilly liable.
II.
Yes. Ms. Kinola Ta can validly put up the defense of self-defense which falls under the Justifying
circumstances of the Revised Penal Code. According to the law, the elements of self-defense is that; 1.
There is unlawful aggression, 2. That there is no provocation on the person who had done the self-
defense, and 3. That the means employed are done with reasonable necessity. In the case at bar, It was
clear that the stabbing done by Ms. Ta was done to save herself since she was already stabbed by Mr.
Bog. Therefore, Ms. Ta can validly put up the defense of self-defense.
III.
A. Yes. Ms. Chaca is criminally liable for the crime of infanticide. According to law, the elements of
the crime of Infanticide is that a child, who is less than three days old, is killed by either the
mother, relatives or a stranger. In the case at bar, Ms. Chaca, a stranger, caused the death of the
child. Therefore, she is liable for the crime of infanticide.
B. In the case at bar, the mitigating circumstances that she can raise up as a defense is that it was
not her intention to cause the death of the child for she has no knowledge that Ms. Maganda
was pregnant.
IV.
No. The French diplomat is incorrect. According to law, diplomats are only immune to those acts that
are in line with their official functions for in those cases, they will be prosecuted in their own country,
and not in the Philippines. In the case at bar, the French diplomat cannot claim diplomatic immunity
since the crime or act committed was not related to his functions as a diplomat in the Philippines.
However, since the pedestrian had jaywalk illegally, the diplomat can apply for mitigating circumstances.
V.
V-A. Archipelagic rule is a rule where if an act is done within the waters of the Philippine archipelago,
those crimes can be tried and heard in the courts of the Philippines since the law provides that acts
committed within the territory of the Philippines can be tried and heard in the Philippine courts.
V-B. The law provides that with the application of the archipelagic rule, those waters that are outside
the territorial waters of the Philippines are considered as international waters.
VI.
Joaquin, Cardo and Guardo are liable for the crime of delivering prisoners from jail. According to law, the
elements of this crime are; 1. That there is a person confined in a jail, 2. That the offender removes
therefrom such person or helps them. The law provides that this provision does not only apply to an
employee of the penal institution, but also to private persons who had done acts or had done means to
deliver the prisoner from jail, like bribery.
VII.
They committed the crime of falsification by private individual and use of falsified document. According
to law, the crime of falsification is committed when one had falsified a document and used the same. In
the case at bar, it was clear that the document was falsified since it stated that Mayor Rody Solemnized
the marriage although it was clear that it was not Mayor Rody who did it. Bong committed also the
crime of Usurpation of authority, since Bong was not authorized by law to solemnize the marriage.
VIII.
VIII A – No. There is no complexed crime of falsification and estafa. According to Law, the effect of
falsification of a private document is the same as that of estafa.
VIII – B. According to law, the criteria in determining whether the crime charged should only be
falsification of private document only or estafa only is when the falsification of private document is
essential to the commission of estafa, then the crime charged is falsification of private document.
However, if the falsification of the private document is not essential for the crime of estafa, then the
crime committed is only estafa.
IX.
Tiburcio cannot be charged with any crime. According to the law, a person can only be charged under
the Dangerous drugs act for visiting a place of den of drugs if he has knowledge of the same. In the case
at bar, it was clear that Tiburcio had no knowledge that the place where he is going is a place for the
conduct of drug. Therefore, Tiburcio cannot be charged under the Dangerous Drugs Act.
X.
W committed the crime of piracy. According to the law, the act of piracy includes the taking away of
personal belongings of a person while in a boat. In the case at bar, it was clear that there was intent to
gain on the part of W that is why he beat V unconscious and thereafter took his possessions. This act
falls under the piracy law, therefore W is liable for the crime of piracy.
XI.
No. As the judge, I will not convict him or arbitrary detention. The law provides that one can only be
charged with arbitrary detention when he/she detains a person without legal cause. In the case at bar,
the police office was charged with a task by the mayor to stop the occurrence of robbery in that certain
place and while doing such duty, he encountered those persons who are acting suspiciously during
midnight. The arrest are proper for if not prevented, there is a high change of a crime being committed
since it is not very natural for a person to lurk in an uninhabited place during midnight. Therefore, I will
not convict the office of the crime charged.
XII.
No. The court is incorrect. The law provides that the Indeterminate Sentence Law is only applicable to
cases that is punishable of 1 year or more. In the case at bar, the penalty of the crime charged did not
exceed one year, therefore ISLAW is not applicable.
XIII.
Yes. The defense of Ms. Alawit is tenable. According to the law, there is grave scandal when one
commits an act that is offensive to decency. However, it must be done in public view and within public
knowledge or view for it to constitute as a grave scandal. In the case at bar, it does not constitute as
grave scandal because she was doing the act inside her room, her room was not within public
knowledge or view, and her room is not a public place.

Criminal Law Finals Exam

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Criminal Law Finals Exam

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Criminal Law Finals Exam

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jose Rolly B.

You might also like