CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW

ONLINE QUIZ 1 ANSWERS

1.a. As the counsel of the respondents Anton and Bello, I would move for the dismissal
of the case based on the following arguments:

First. Respondents were not aware of the change or any alteration in the contents
of the shipment. Such lack of knowledge makes them innocent of the charge.

Second. Granting for the sake of argument that there was misrepresentation, still
the case cannot prosper because the third element of Section 3(e), RA 3019: causing any
undue injury to any party, including the government, is absent. Undue injury requires
actual damage or prejudice to the government or to another. Here there was no damage
caused to anybody, more so to the government, because the shipment was never
released.

Hence, the Ombudsman must dismiss the case for want of probable cause.

1.b. As the Ombudsman, I would dismiss the charge, and instead, file a case of
Attempted Estafa through Falsification of Official or Commercial Document against Anton
and Bello.

I would dismiss the case of Violation of Section 3(e), RA 3019 on the following
grounds:

First. The government, or any party, incurred no undue injury or damage.

The elements of Section 3(e), RA 3019 are: (1) The offender is a public officer in
the discharge of his official, administrative or judicial function, or a private person charged
in conspiracy with him; (2) He acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross
inexcusable negligence; and (3) He caused undue injury to any party including the
government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference.

Although Anton, a public officer, and Bello, a private person who conspired with
him, acted with evident bad faith in misleading the government on the actual contents of
the shipment in order to defraud it of the correct taxes and duties due, the third element
of “causing undue injury” is absent. ‘Causing undue injury’ requires proof of actual injury
or damage caused to any party. In the case, no actual injury or damage has been caused
to the government, or any party, due to the timely examination of the shipment and the
subsequent issuance of a hold order and a warrant of seizure and detention.

Second. The absence of the third element of ‘causing undue injury’ makes the
respondents’ act only an attempted Violation of Section 3(e), RA 3019. But there is no
such crime. Violation of RA 3019 is penalized only in the consummated stage. Article 10
of the Revised Penal Code which provides that the Code shall be supplementary to
special penal laws does not apply because the penalty for Violation of RA 3019 – 6 years
and 1 month to 15 years – is not the same nomenclature as those in the RPC.

However, based on the given facts, I would indict Anton and Bello of the complex
crime of Attempted Estafa through Falsification of Official/Commercial Document.

By falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications as agents of PPE

Trading [Article 315(2)(a)], Anton, a Customs’ official taking advantage of his position, in
conspiracy with Bello, intended to defraud the government by falsifying the: packing list,
commercial invoice, bill of lading, and sworn Import Duty Declaration. These are official
and commercial documents under the Tariff and Customs Code. The falsifications consist
in:

(a) causing it to appear that PPE Trading is a legitimate importer which had
participated in such importation, although, in truth, it is non-existent and had no
participation in the importation; and
(b) making untruthful statements that the shipment contains children’s toys when,
in truth, they are video recorders. [Article 171(2) and (4)]

The falsification is a necessary means to commit estafa, hence, a complex crime

under Article 48, RPC.

2. PDEA Agent Torres committed the following crimes:

a. Malversation of public funds and property, Article 217, RPC.

The elements are: (a) the offender is a public officer; (b) he is entrusted with funds
and property by reason of the duties of his office; (c) these are public funds and property
which he has to account later to the state; and (d) he appropriated, took, misappropriated
or consented, or through his abandonment or negligence, permitted others to
misappropriate the same.

In this case, Agent Torres, as a public officer, has been entrusted to be the
custodian of the drugs seized by the State. These drugs, being in custodia legis, become
public property which Agent Torres has the obligation to account to the state. However,
he appropriated, took and misappropriated the same by repacking the drugs and selling
to his customers, for his personal benefit.

b. Violation of Section 27, RA 9165

Agent Torres, a public office, misappropriated and failed to account for the
dangerous drugs seized in the raid because he repacked and sold the same.

c. Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, RA 9165

The elements are: (a) the buyer and seller are clearly identified; (b) the corpus
delicti (drugs) and the price are established; and (c) the corpus delicti must be transferred
from the hands of the seller to the hands of the buyer.
 In the present case, all elements are present. Agent Torres, the drug peddler, was
caught in the act of selling 10 big packs of shabu worth PHP 100,000.00 to Police Officer
Borja, who acted as a poseur buyer, in planned entrapment operation.

d. Corruption of Public Officer, Article 212, RPC

Agent Torres offered, and indeed gave, his ATM card, with an alleged deposit of
PHP1million, to Policeman Borja, a public officer, under circumstances in which the latter
would become liable for direct bribery.

In Article 212, the offender may be any person, whether a public officer or a private
individual.

Police Officer Borja committed the following crimes:

a. Qualified Bribery, Article 211-A, RPC

The elements are: (a) the accused is a public officer entrusted with law
enforcement; (b) he does arrest or prosecute an offender who has committed a crime
punished by reclusion perpetua and/or death; and (c) he does not arrest/prosecute the
offender because of the offer or promise, gift or present given to him.

Here, PO Borja, as a police officer, is in charge with the enforcement of the law.
Despite the fact that he caught Agent Torres in flagrante delicto selling drugs, a crime
punished by life imprisonment to death under RA 9165, PO Borja refused to arrest and to
charge him in court. He allowed him to escape because of the bribe given to him, i.e., the
ATM card with PHP1million deposit.

That the ATM account turned out to have zero balance is immaterial because the
law punishes the mere agreement to accept the offer.

b. Obstruction of Justice, Violation of PD 1829

PO Borja knowingly obstructs and impedes the apprehension, investigation, and
prosecution of Agent Torres, by facilitating his escape, despite personal knowledge that
Torres has just committed illegal selling of drugs.

***vcgarcia
CrimRev-UST-Quiz1
25April2020