SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW

Mendiola, Manila

FINAL EXAMINATION IN CRIMINAL LAW II

1D, 1E & 1F
SECOND SEMESTER, SY 2019-2020

Student ID No. L-170171 Section: 1F Exam Permit No. ______________

Instructions:

This questionnaire consists of twenty (20) main questions contained in ten

(10) pages. Read each question very carefully. Answer legibly, clearly, and
concisely. Do not repeat the question. A mere "Yes" or "No" answer without any
corresponding discussion will not be given any credit.

Make sure you do not write your name or any extraneous note/s or
distinctive marking/s on the document that will be submitted online that can serve
as an identifying mark/s (such as names that are not in the given questions, prayers,
or private notes to the professor). Except for providing the required details in the
spaces above, any other act of writing, leaving or making any distinguishing or
identifying mark in the exam notebook is considered cheating.

The professor will not check the answers of the student who fails to comply
with these requirements.

I.

With the use of the keys he found the other day, Gan Id took all the coconut
fruits placed inside the room of Tag Iya. What crime, if any, was committed?

ANSWER: The crime committed is only theft because the following

elements are present such as; the taking of personal property, said property
belongs to another, that the taking be done with intent to gain, that the taking
be done without the consent of the owner; and that the taking be
accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons
or force upon things. In the given case, Gan Id took all the coconut fruits
placed in the room of Tag Iya, therefore he is liable for the crime of theft.
It must be emphasized that taking of coconut for it to fall under qualified
theft must be done within the premises of a plantation.

II.

Jose Ibarra, upon coming home, surprised his wife, Maria Clara, together
with Crispin Basilio. The paramour was fast enough to jump out of the window.
Jose Ibarra got the bolo and chased Crispin Basilio but he disappeared among the
neighborhood. So Jose Ibarra started looking around for about an hour but he could
not find Crispin Basilio. Jose Ibarra gave up and was on his way home.
Unfortunately, Crispin Basilio, thinking that Jose Ibarra was no longer around,
1
came out of hiding and at that moment, Jose Ibarra saw him and hacked him to
death. What is the criminal liability, if any, of Jose Ibarra?

ANSWER: There will be no criminal liability except for a penalty of destierro

because the facts given fall under Art. 247, RPC Death or Physical Injuries Inflicted
Under Exceptional Circumstances. The facts of the given problem were similar to
one of the dicided cases the Supreme Court in the case of People v. Abarca, the
death caused must be the proximate result of the outrage overwhelming the accused
after chancing upon his spouse in the basest act of infidelity. Such is applicable in
the given problem because Jose Ibarra is acting in a justified burst of passion.

III.

According to the confidential informant, Maria Clara was using her house as
a venue for people to use the illegal drugs (e.g., marijuana, cocaine and shabu) that
were purchased from her. By virtue of said information, the police officers applied
for a search warrant. Taking into account that no one among the clients of Maria
Clara would want to testify during the hearing on the application for a search
warrant, the police officers used the building plan that was submitted to the City
Engineering Office to illustrate to the Judge the areas in the house of Maria Clara
and directed Crispin Basilio, a newly appointed police officer, to pretend that he
was able to buy shabu from Maria Clara and use the facilities in Maria Clara’s
house to consume shabu. After a 4-hour hearing, the Judge issued the search
warrant which contained an authority for the police officers to search the house of
Maria Clara and to seize the marijuana seeds inside the library, where pot sessions
are normally conducted according to the Crispin Basilio.

During the implementation of the search warrant, the police officers were not
able to see any person using illegal drugs in the library inside Maria Clara’s place.
However, they were able to seize two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet
containing residue of shabu which were placed on top of a pair of black shoes under
the staircase. Considering that maria Clara appeared to have recently used shabu,
urine samples were taken from her at the crime laboratory office. Upon seeing that
the result of the laboratory examination of the urine sample yielded positive to the
presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, the police officers filed charges
against Maria Clara for violation of Sections 11 and 15 of R.A. 9165.

a. If you were the handling prosecutor, would you recommend the filing
of Information for violation of Sections 11 and 15 of R.A. 9165
in the given problem? Explain.

ANSWER: Yes. I would recommend the filing of Information for violation

of Sections 11 and 15 of R.A. 9165 due to the fact that the alleged shabu
were found in plain view within the premises subject of a search warrant.
The offense of Sec. 11, in a catena of cases the Supreme Court has decided
that possession may either be actual or constructive. In this case, considering
that Maria Clara is the owner of the premises subject of the search warrant
she is presumed to have a constructive over the alleged shabu found within
her premises. Further, considering that when she was physically examined
she turned out to be positive for the usage of dangerous substance hence,
Sec. 15 is warranted to be charged against her.
2
 b. Assuming that you were the defense counsel, what charges, if any,
would you be filing against the police officers? Explain.

ANSWER: If I were the defense counsel, I would be filing the following crimes of
Perjury and Maliciously Obtaining a Search Warrant against the Police Officer.
Under Arts. 183 and Art. 129, respectively. For the crime of Perjury, police officers
are liable for knowingly making untruthful statements by pretending that a Police
Officer was able to buy shabu within the premises of Maria Clara.
For the other crime, since such statement was used in procuring a search warrant a
crime of maliciously obtaining a search warrant is also warranted in this case
because the following elements are present such as; that the offender is a public
officer or employee, that he procures a search warrant; and there is no just cause.

IV.

Magna Nacao, Cawa Tan and Apil Apil went to the house of Vic Tim and
started getting the latter’s valuable properties. Vicky Tim, 13-year old daughter of
Vic Tim, tried to prevent Cawa Tan from getting her jewelry. Cawa Tan decided to
drag her to the master’s bedroom. While inside the room, Cawa Tan had carnal
knowledge with Vicky Tim. Cawa Tan then left Vicky Tim in the room and joined
his two other companions in searching for other valuable items. When they could
not find additional items, they decided to leave the house. On their way out, they
met two (2) police officers. They immediately killed one of the police officers and
decided to bring the other to their residence. While inside their residence, they
tortured, sexually assaulted and eventually killed the police officer. What crime
was committed?

ANSWER: The crime committed was Robbery with Homicide under Art. 294,
RPC because the death resulted by reason or on occasion of Robbery. There is
robbery with homicide even if the person killed was a bystander and not the person
robbed or even if he or she was one of the offenders. The law does not require the
victim of Robbery be also the victim of Homicide. Considering that the victim in
this case are Police Officers, their death can be considered by reason of the
commission of Robbery. And this can be taken as an aggravating circumstance of
Direct Assault. The Rape committed on the 13-year old daughter can be absorbed
to the crime of Robbery with Homicide as part of violence.

V.

Discuss the distinction, if any, between the offenses defined under P.D. 1602
from those defined under R.A. 9287.

ANSWER: Both laws have the same elements. However, under R.A. 9287.
It increases the penalties for illegal number games such as jueteng, masiao
and last two. Illegal number games is any form of illegal gambling activity
which uses numbers or combinations thereof as a factors in giving out
jackpots.

3
 VI.

Dra. Maria Clara performed a surgical operation on the face of Jose Ibarra.
Although the procedures were properly undertaken, Jose Ibarra expressed his
serious disappointment on the result and threatened to file a case for medical
malpractice against Dra. Maria Clara.

After a week, Jose Ibarra changed his mind. He approached Dra. Maria
Clara and told her that he will no longer file charges against her on the condition
that she must reimburse all the expenses he incurred for the earlier operation and
perform five (5) free surgical operations on his body to enhance his features. In
order to buy peace, and avoid any negative publicity, Dra. Clara performed two (2)
free operations. During those operations, Jose Ibarra demanded for a free
transportation service and hotel accommodation.

Considering the financial burden that has resulted from the Jose Ibarra’s acts,
Dra. Maria Clara filed charges for theft, robbery and extortion. If you were the
investigating prosecutor, what would be your recommendation? Explain.

ANSWER: I would recommend the filling of Robbery Extortion against Jose

Ibarra. As it falls within the elements of the crime, intimidation is actual and
immediate, intimidation is personal, intimidation is directed only to the person of
the victim and the gain of the culprit is immediate. And Grave Threat since the act
of Jose Ibarra threatened Dra. Maria Clara which amount to a crime and demanding
any other condition even though not unlawful, and the offender attained his
purpose.

VII.

For failing to submit his project, Santos Dela Cruz was made to suffer a
corporal punishment by doing several push-ups while Mr. Crispin Basilio is hitting
him with a wooden paddle at the back. Unable to bear the pain any longer, Santos
Dela Cruz stood up and punched Mr. Crispin Basilio on the jaw. The fistic blow
caused Mr. Crispin Basilio to lose his balance, to hit his head on the cement and to
suffer internal hemorrhage. After few hours in the hospital, Mr. Crispin Basilio was
pronounced clinically dead.

What crime, if any, was committed by Santos Dela Cruz?

ANSWER: The crime committed was Homicide, because the following elements
are present such as, the person was killed, that the accused was killed without any
justifying circumstance, that the accused had the intention to kill which is presumed
and the killing was not attended by any of the qualifying circumstances of murder,
or that of parricide or infanticide. As can be gleaned from the facts, the intention
was merely to injure but because of the fistic blow caused Mr. Crispin Basilio to
lose his balance, to hit his head on the cement and to suffer internal hemorrhage.
This can fall under the concept of Proximate Cause.

VIII.

The Information filed by the public prosecutor contained the following:

4
 That on or before the 7th day of July 2017 in the City of
Bukang Liwayway, Philippines, the above-named accused, Santos
Dela Cruz, with lewd design and by means of force, violence and
intimidation, did then and there knowingly, willfully and unlawfully
commit sexual abuse and lascivious conduct upon an eight (8) year
old minor child, “AAA”, by then and there dragging her in a dark
alley then touching her breasts and inserting his index finger in her
vagina and afterwards his phallus, against her will and consent,
thereby causing serious danger to the normal growth and
development of “AAA”, to her damage and prejudice.

Assuming that you are the Judge handling instant case and that the
prosecution was able to successfully prove all the accusations in the Information,
what crime/s should Santos Dela Cruz be convicted of? Explain.

ANSWER: Santos Dela Cruz should be convicted for the crime of Rape
through Sexual Assault considering the victim is a minor it can be qualified.
The following elements are present in the given problem, that the offender
commits an act of sexual assault, that the act of sexual assault is committed
by any of the following means, first by inserting his penis into another
person’s mouth or anal orifice or by inserting any instrument or object into
the genital or anal orifice of another person and that the act of sexual assault
is accomplished under any of the circumstances. The act of Santos Dela Cruz
by dragging AAA in a dark alley then touching her breasts and inserting his
index finger in her vagina and afterwards his phallus, against her will and
consent, constitute Qualified Rape through Sexual Assault.

IX.

Discuss the prescriptive period for the offense under Section 4(c)(4) of R.A.
10175.

ANSWER: The law upgraded the imposable penalty to Prision Mayor. Under the
law the basis for prescription would be the imposable penalty. Considering that
Prision Mayor is Afflictive Penalty it prescribes in 15 years to be reckoned from the
moment of discovery.
X.

Following a vehicular collision in January 2016, Santos Dela Cruz was

charged before the Branch 123 of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Bukang
Liwayway with two separate offenses: (1) Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Slight
Physical Injuries, which was docketed as Criminal Case No. 34567 for injuries
sustained by Maria Clara; and (2) Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and
Damage to Property, which was docketed as Criminal Case No. 56789 for the death
of Maria Clara’s boyfriend named Jose Ibarra and damage to the Ibarra’s vehicle.

In March 2016, Santos Dela Cruz pleaded guilty to the charge in Criminal
Case No. 34567. He was sentenced to suffer the penalty of public censure. Using
his conviction for said offense, Santos Dela Cruz moved to quash the Information
in Criminal Case No. 56789 on the ground of double jeopardy.
5
 Assuming that you were the Presiding Judge in the MTCC where the case
was pending, would you proceed with the trial of Criminal Case No. 56789? Why?

ANSWER: Not anymore. Otherwise it would constitute double jeopardy. The

Supreme Court held that reckless imprudence or negligence is a crime in itself.
Hence, once convicted or acquitted of a specific act of Reckless Imprudence, the
accused may not be prosecuted again for that same act. This is consonance with the
doctrine lay down by the Supreme Court in Ivler v. San Pedro. In the given case,
the accused already pleaded guilty in Criminal Case No. 34567, he could no longer
prosecuted further in another case in question because both cases arose from one
single negligent act.

XI.

The joint team of the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (“CIDG”)
and the Philippine National Police “(PNP”) applied for a search warrant before
Branch 168 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. In their application for a
search warrant against Santos Dela Cruz, who is a well-known drug personality in
the locality, they indicated the following facts:

1. That Santos Dela Cruz owns a caliber .45 firearm and two
magazines loaded with live ammunitions;
2. That Santos Dela Cruz is keeping the caliber .45 firearm and two
magazines loaded with live ammunitions inside his bedroom,
which was facing the kitchen of his bungalow house located at
Zone 11, Masinag St., Bukang Liwayway;
3. That Santos Dela Cruz has not been issued any license or permit
to own and/or possess any caliber of firearm or major parts
thereof;
4. That Santos Dela Cruz has violated Section 28 of R.A. 10591;
5. The foregoing facts are personally known to the deponent as he
has personally seen Santos Dela Cruz in the act of placing the
aforementioned items inside the above-described bedroom.

In order to support the application for the search warrant, the law
enforcement officers submitted the following documents:

1. Request for Firearm’s Verification Report;

2. Initial Report on the Firearm’s Verification issued by the Firearms and
Explosives Office of the PNP, showing that Santos Dela Cruz had not
been issued any license or permit to own and/or possess any caliber of
firearm and/or its major parts;
3. Sketch plan of the locality, showing that the bungalow house was located
at the left side of Masinag St. and across the lone funeral parlor at
Bukang Liwayway;
4. Sketch plan of the bungalow house, showing that upon entry to the main
door, there is a living room. Moving to the right part of the living room,
there is a kitchen. Beside the kitchen, there is a staircase leading to the
two bedrooms and a powder room. The first bedroom shares wall with
the kitchen.
6
 At around 11:30 in the morning of 2 June 2020, and after having been
satisfied on the existence of probable cause, the Presiding Judge of the Regional
Trial Court of Bukang Liwayway issued Search Warrant No. B-7890 against Santos
Dela Cruz for violation of Section 28 of R.A. 10591.

The law enforcement officers carefully planned the implementation of the

search warrant. Following the finalization of the plan at around 1:00 in the morning
of 3 June 2020, the law enforcement officers proceeded to the target place. At
around 2:30 in the morning of the same day, they were able to go inside the
premises of the house. After securing the whole place, the law enforcement officers
allegedly introduced themselves to the occupants of the house and announced their
purpose for being in the house but they did not receive any response. Thus, the
team leader forced open the main door. At that point, the grandmother of Santos
Dela Cruz and her nurse were awakened. Upon seeing them, the police officers
again introduced themselves and informed the grandmother and the nurse about the
purpose for their operation. After about a minute, Santos Dela Cruz and his wife
came out from the room near the staircase. All occupants, except Santos Dela Cruz,
were requested to stay at the garage. The law enforcement officers together with
barangay officials from Zone 11, Bukang Liwayway and Santos Dela Cruz went
inside the first bedroom near the staircase that shared a wall with the kitchen.
While inside, the designated searcher saw on top of a wooden table twenty (20)
transparent sachets containing white crystalline substance similar to
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. The searcher immediately confiscated
the same. The searcher continued searching until he saw inside a cabinet the caliber
.45 firearm with magazine loaded with seven (7) live ammunitions. Beside the
firearm, the searcher also found a hand grenade. He confiscated all the items. He
likewise required Santos Dela Cruz to present his license and/or permit to own
and/or possess the firearm and the hand grenade. However, Santos Dela Cruz was
unable to present any legal document.

Before proceeding to conduct the inventory, and in consideration of the fact

that sachets containing suspected shabu were also seen in plain view during the
implementation of the search warrant, the law enforcement officers called witnesses
from the media and the National Prosecution Service (“NPS”). After the arrival of
the required witnesses, the law enforcement officers proceeded in the conduct of the
inventory. A Receipt containing an enumeration and description of items seized
was prepared along with the Certificate of Orderly Search. Santos Dela Cruz
refused to sign the Certificate of Orderly Search. Thus, only the barangay officials
who accompanied the law enforcement officers signed the same. For the suspected
drug items, the law enforcement officers prepared a Receipt, which was signed by
the witnesses from the barangay, media and the NPS. Copies thereof were also
given to them. However, Santos Dela Cruz again refused to sign the Receipt and to
receive a copy thereof.

During the inquest proceedings for violations of Section 28 of R.A. 10591,

Section 1 of R.A. 9516 amending Section 3 of R.A. 1866, and Section 11 of Article
II of R.A. 9165, Santos Dela Cruz, who was assisted by the lawyer from the Public
Attorney’s Office (“PAO”) decided not to avail of his right to a preliminary
investigation. Thus, the investigating prosecutor proceeded in the conduct of
inquest investigation. After the termination of the inquest investigation, the
7
investigating prosecutor found probable cause to hold Santos Dela Cruz from trial
for violations of Section 28 (a) in relation to Section 28 (e), Article V of R.A.
10591, Section 1 of R.A. 9516 amending Section 3 of R.A. 1866, and Section 11 of
Article II of R.A. 9165.

On the fourth day following the filing of the Information before Branch 168
of the Regional Trial Court of Bukang Liwayway, Santos Dela Cruz, through
counsel, filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence. In order to support the Motion,
Santos Dela Cruz submitted the following:

1. CCTV footage taken from the outside area of the funeral parlor, showing
that the law enforcement officers used a ladder to climb the fence of the
house and that there was no attempt to inform first the occupants about
the purpose of the law enforcement officers in going to the house;
2. CCTV footage taken from the garage, showing that the team leader
immediately kicked the main door and exerted pressure to force it open
and that there was again no attempt to first introduce themselves and state
their purpose;
3. Certification from the Chairperson of Zone 12, stating that the house
where the search warrant was implemented is located at Zone 12 and not
at Zone 11;
4. Photographs showing that the house was not bungalow as it had actually
three (3) floors inside; and
5. Photographs showing that the living room was the one fronting the
kitchen. The bedroom where the search was actually done was not
fronting the kitchen as its door was fronting the landing of the staircase.

During the pendency of the Motion, Santos Dela Cruz also filed a case for
violation of Article 129 of the Revised Penal Code against the members of the
CIDG and the PNP who joined in the implementation of Search Warrant No. B-
7890.

As the investigating prosecutor, you were tasked to determine the merits of

the case. Would you recommend the filing of Information against the members of
the CIDG and the PNP who joined in the implementation of Search Warrant No. B-
7890? Why?

ANSWER: Yes. I would recommend the filing of Information against the

members of the CIDG and the PNP who joined in the implementation of
Search Warrant No. B-7890. Because based on the facts given as proven by
the presentation of CCTV footages showing abuses and serious irregularities
in the implementation of the subject search warrant, Art. 129, RPC was
clearly violated by the law enforcers. By exceeding their authority or by
using unnecessary severity in executing a search warrant legally procured.
The following elements are present, that the offender is a public officer or
employee, that he has legally procured a search warrant; and that he exceeds
his authority or uses unnecessary severity in executing the same.

XII.

8
 Maria Clara had been married to Jose Ibarra for fifteen (15) years. Since their
marriage, Jose Ibarra had been jobless and a drunkard, preferring to stay with his
friends until the wee hours of the morning. Maria Clara was the breadwinner and
the only person who attended to the needs of their five (5) children. Many times,
when Jose Ibarra was drunk, he would beat Maria Clara and their five (5) children,
and shout invectives against them. In fact, in one of the beating incidents, Maria
Clara suffered a deep stab wound on her chest that required a prolonged stay in the
hospital. Due to the beatings and verbal abuses committed against her, she
consulted a psychologist several times, as she was slowly beginning to lose her
mind. One night, when Jose Ibarra arrived dead drunk, he suddenly stabbed Maria
Clara several times while shouting invectives against her. Defending herself from
the attack, Maria Clara grappled for the possession of a knife and she succeeded.
She then stabbed Jose Ibarra one hundred (100) times which caused his
instantaneous death. What crime/s, if any, was/were committed? Explain.

ANSWER: The crime commited is Parricide. However, Maria Clara’s action was
justified under Sec. 26 of R.A. 9262 the so-called Battered Woman Syndrome who
is repeatedly subjected to any forceful physical or psychological behavior by a man
in order to coerce her to do something he wants her to do without concern for her
right, therefore she incurs no criminal liability. The facts of the case squarely fall
within the elements of cycle of violence such as the tension-building phase, the
acute battering incident and the tranquil loving phase.

XIII.

Maria Clara had been married to Jose Ibarra for fifteen (15) years. Since their
marriage, Jose Ibarra had been jobless and a drunkard, preferring to stay with his
friends until the wee hours of the morning. Maria Clara was the breadwinner and
the only person who attended to the needs of their five (5) children. Many times,
when Jose Ibarra was drunk, he would beat Maria Clara and their five (5) children,
and shout invectives against them. In fact, in one of the beating incidents, Maria
Clara suffered a deep stab wound on her chest that required a prolonged stay in the
hospital. Due to the beatings and verbal abuses committed against her, she
consulted a psychologist several times, as she was slowly beginning to lose her
mind. One night, when Jose Ibarra arrived dead drunk, he suddenly stabbed Maria
Clara several times while shouting invectives against her. Jose Ibarra blamed Maria
Clara for his miserable life. The following day, the children found the lifeless body
of Maria Clara, which was hanging on the ceiling of the living room. The Scene of
the Crime Operatives (“SOCO”) ruled out any foul play and concluded that Maria
Clara committed suicide.

Assuming that the parents of Maria Clara approached you to inquire on any
possible charges that might be filed against Jose Ibarra to hold him accountable for
the death of Maria Clara, what would be your advice? Explain.

ANSWER: I would advice that they could file a case of VAWC or R.A. 9262
against Jose Ibarra. Under Sec. 25 of the same law, is a public crime which means a
violence against women and their children shall be considered a public offense
which may be prosecuted upon the filing of a complaint by any citizen having
personal knowledge of the circumstances involving the commission of the crime.

9
 XIV.

Santos Dela Cruz, the librarian of the University of the Philippines College
of Law, was made a custodian of the tuition fees paid by the students.
Subsequently, after receiving the total amount of P3,000,000.00, he absconded. He
was charged of malversation of public funds. If you were the Presiding Judge
where the case against him is pending, would you convict him of the offense
charged in the Information? Explain.

ANSWER: Yes. Because he is a Public officer being an employee of the University

of the Philippines College of Law, which is a Public Corporation. The fund based
on the facts given was placed under his custody for safekeeping and he
misappropriated it. These circumstances are found within the elements of the crime
of Malversation, that the offender be a public officer, that he had custody or control
of funds or property by reason of the duties of his office, that those funds or
property were public funds or property for which he was accountable, and that he
appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented, or through abandonment or
negligence, permitted another person to take them.

XV.

a. Discuss whether it is possible for an accused charged with willful

malversation to be convicted of the same felony of malversation through
negligence.

ANSWER: Yes. Because Malversation can also be committed through

negligence which is the omission to do something which a reasonable
man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the
conduct of human affairs, would do, or the doing of something which a
prudent and reasonable man would do. As it was decided in the case of
Leano v. Domingo. However, if the same public fund is involved it
would be impossible to convict a person for a crime of intentional and
unintentional at the same time.

b. Assuming that an accused in a case for malversation decided and in fact,

returned the amount that was misappropriated, what would be its effect
on his/her criminal liability?

ANSWER: The effect is only mitigating. Restitution of the amount

malversed would not in any way exonerate an accused, as payment is not
one of the elements of extinction of criminal liability. As cited in the case
of Perez v. People.

c. What is the effect on the criminal liability of the accused of the

prosecution’s failure to present direct evidence showing the personal
misappropriation of the accused?

ANSWER: It has no effect. Direct evidence in Malversation is not

required. Because the law presumes that Malversation was committed
when after there has been complete, thorough and reliable audit, there is a
discrepancy in the funds or property. As such when the officer cannot
10
 overthrow the prima facie presumption of malversation in law, he could
be held liable. As it was held in Cabelio v. Sandiganbayan.

XVI.

Maria Clara was the City Information Officer of Bukang Liwayway. After
receiving information from the City Health Officer that the first two (2) COVID-19
patients have completely healed and recovered, the City Information Officer
immediately posted an announcement in the official page of the local government
unit. In the announcement, she posted the names of the first two (2) COVID-19
patients.

Jose Ibarra, the neighbors of the patients, immediately moved his car to the
entrance of the barangay in order to block the entry of the patients. He likewise
called his friends to serve as human barricade in order to prevent the patients from
returning home. According to Jose Ibarra, there is no assurance that the patients are
no longer carrying the virus.

Aggrieved, the two (2) patients sought your legal opinion on the all possible
cases that may be filed in the given problem. What case/s, if any, would you
recommend to be filed in the given problem? Why?

ANSWER: I would recommend to file the crime of Grave Coercion. As it falls

within the elements of the said crime such as, that a person prevented another from
doing something not prohibited by law, or by compelling him to do something
against his will, be it right or wrong and that the prevention or compulsion be
effected by violence, threats or intimidation and that the person that restrained the
will and liberty of another has no right to do so, or in other words, that the restraint
is not made under authority of law or in the exercise of lawful right.

XVII.

Santos Dela Cruz availed of the program for the locally stranded individuals
and used his Toyota FJ Cruiser in travelling from Quezon City to Bukang
Liwayway. After a 36-hour drive, he finally reached his house at Zone 12, Masinag
St., Bukay Liwayway. The barangay officials learned about his arrival. Thus, the
barangay officials immediately proceeded to his house to inform him that based on
the policies of the local Inter-Agency Task Force Against COVID-19, all locally
stranded individuals must first be undergo a rapid test. If the result is positive, they
must undergo a swab test. While waiting for the results, the concerned individual
must stay in a designated isolation area. The individual is not allowed to do a home
quarantine in order to prevent the possibility of local transmission. Not wanting to
stay in the isolation area, Santos Dela Cruz refused to go with the barangay
officials. Moreover, Santos Dela Cruz spilled muriatic acid on the face of the Chief
Barangay Tanod and shot the Barangay Chairperson.

The incident resulted to a permanent deformity on the face of the Chief

Barangay Tanod and the death of the Barangay Chairperson. Considering the
11
humiliation of the Chief Barangay Tanod, he was forced to contract loan. He used
the money to avail of the services of Dra. Aivee Teo. The surgery was successful
and the Chief Barangay Tanod appeared not to have suffered any injury from the
incident. On the other hand, the President awarded financial assistance to the
bereaved family of the Barangay Chairperson and a scholarship to his only child.

This notwithstanding, the family of the Barangay Chairperson and the Chief
Barangay Tanod are contemplating on filing charges against Santos Dela Cruz.
What crime/s, if any, was/were committed by Santos Dela Cruz? Explain.

ANSWER: Dela Cruz committed the crime of Serious Physical Injury on the Chief
Brgy. Tanod for causing his face to be deformed by spilling muriatic acid. The law
provides if the injury has some kind of permanent deformity serious physical injury
was committed, when the injured person becomes ill or incapacitated for labor for
more than 30 days but must not be more than 90 days as a result of the physical
injuries inflicted. As to the brgy. Chairperson, Dela Cruz committed the crime of
Homicide since the following elements were present, that a person was killed, that
the accused killed him without any justifying circumstance, hat the accused had the
intention to kill, which is presumed and that the killing was not attended by any of
the qualifying circumstances of murder, or by that of parricide or infanticide.

XVIII.

a. Discuss the elements of the offense under Section 9 (e) of R.A. 11332.

ANSWER:
1. Non-cooperation of persons or entities identified as having notifiable
disease
2. Non-cooperation of the person or entities or affected by the health
event of public concern.

b. Assuming that a Filipino citizen residing in one of the cities in the

country knowingly and intentionally went outside his residence and
proceeded to a public place without wearing the face mask required under
the Executive Order issued by the City Mayor in that locality, can he be
sued for violation of Section 9 (e) of R.A. 11332? Why?

ANSWER: No. He can’t be sued for violation of Section 9 (e) of R.A.

11332 because the law only mandates for the reporting of infectious
disease. Because R.A. 11332 is mainly on mandatory reporting of
diseases the prohibited acts must be strictly construed to relate to the
intention and the police cannot make another interpretation.

c. Assuming that a Filipino citizen residing in one of the provinces in the

country knowingly and intentionally went outside his residence and
stayed on the street during the period covered by the curfew hours in the
locality, can he be sued for violation of Section 9 (e) of R.A. 11332?
Why?

ANSWER: No. He can’t be sued for violation of Section 9 (e) of R.A.

11332 because the law only mandates for the reporting of infectious
12
 disease. Because R.A. 11332 is mainly on mandatory reporting of
diseases the prohibited acts must be strictly construed to relate to the
intention and the police cannot make another interpretation.

d. Assuming that fifteen (15) men were arrested for participating in an

illegal cockfight during the implementation of the enhanced community
quarantine. Can a case for violation of Section 9 (e) of R.A. 11332 be
filed against them for their non-cooperation with the policy against mass
gathering? Why?

ANSWER: No. He can’t be sued for violation of Section 9 (e) of R.A.

11332 because the law only mandates for the reporting of infectious
disease. Because R.A. 11332 is mainly on mandatory reporting of
diseases the prohibited acts must be strictly construed to relate to the
intention and the police cannot make another interpretation.

e. Santos Dela Cruz, a locally stranded individual who had the symptoms of
COVID-19 requested the barangay chairperson to allow him to do a home
quarantine instead of submitting himself to the city health professionals
for isolation and observation and that the same was in consideration of
financial support during the 2022 National Election. Thus, the Brgy.
Chairperson kept quiet about the arrival of Santos Dela Cruz in their
barangay. What offense/s, if any, was/were committed? Explain.

ANSWER: The Brgy. Chairperson commits a violation of Section 9 (e)

of R.A. 11332 as he failed to report a person who possess a
communicable disease. It is mandatory under the cited law to report the
same as it is a health events of public health and concern.

XIX.

The Chief of the Land Transportation Office (“LTO”) borrowed the sports
utility vehicles (“SUVs”) seventy-five (75) times from a private company with a
pending transaction with the LTO.

The Chief of the LTO was indicted. For his defense, he argued that there
was no showing on the specific transactions of the private company with the LTO
that he approved and/or intervened in so he could borrow vehicles from the
company.

If you were the Presiding Judge in the court where the case is pending,
would you convict the Chief of the LTO for violation of Section 3(b) of R.A. 3019?
Explain.

ANSWER: Yes. If I were the Presiding judge I would convict the Chief of LTO
because under the law public officer who directly or indirectly requesting or
receiving any benefit for himself or any other person in connection with the
transaction between the Government and any other party wherein the public official
concerned in his official capacity has to intervene under the law . The Chief LTO
knowingly transacted with a private company using or taking advantage of his
13
capacity as a public officer entered into a transaction for his own benefit or
otherwise.

XX.

In the morning of 11 November 2011, Santos Dela Cruz went to the Bureau
of Internal Revenue (“BIR”) office in Bukang Liwayway to ask for the computation
of real property taxes of Noli Me Tangere Inc. and to apply for a certificate
authorizing registration (“CAR”). While in said office, she was entertained by
Maria Clara, a revenue examiner. Maria Clara made an assessment and found that
Noli Me Tangere Inc. is liable for P500,000.00 for documentary stamp tax and
P2,000,000.00 for capital gains tax. The assessment was approved by Crispin
Basilio in his capacity as group supervisor. Santos Dela Cruz deposited the payment
in the bank and returned to apply for a CAR. He submitted the application together
with other supporting documents to Maria Clara for processing. Maria Clara
prepared the revenue audit reports. She submitted the CAR application and the
reports to Crispin Basilio for preliminary approval. The application was to be
submitted to Sisa Damaso for final approval. Maria Clara advised Santos Dela Cruz
that the CAR would be released after five (5) working days.

At around 11:30 in the morning of the same day, Santos Dela Cruz received
a call from Maria Clara. She was told that Crispin Basilio wanted to have a cup of
coffee with her while negotiating on some terms. Santos Dela Cruz proceeded to
Crispin Basilio’s office. While in the office, Crispin Basilio demanded
P1,000,000.00 in exchange for the approval of the CAR. Santos Dela Cruz replied
that he must first consult with his three cousins who were his business partners.

After receiving several calls from the Crispin Basilio regarding the demand
to pay P1,000,000.00 as mobilization fee for the processing and approval of the
CAR, Crispin Basilio decided to coordinate with the National Bureau of
Investigation (“NBI”) for entrapment operation. Thus, on 21 November 2011, the
NBI officer instructed Santos Dela Cruz to prepare ten (10) bundles of bogus
money by putting a P1,000.00 bill on each side of each of the bundles to make it
appear that the ten (10) bundles amounted to ₱100,000.00 each or a total of
₱1,000,000.00. After the recording of the serial numbers of the twenty (20)
P1,000.00 bills, the entrapment was set for 23 November 2020.

On 23 November 2020, Santos Dela Cruz called Crispin Basilio and begged
for the release of the CAR and the reduction of the amount to be paid to Crispin
Basilio. Santos Dela Cruz was informed by Crispin Basilio not to discuss about the
matter on the phone. Thus, they agreed to meet each other at the office of Crispin
Basilio. Santos Dela Cruz went to Crispin Basilio’s office with the ten (10) bundles
of bogus money inside a long expandable green envelope.

Inside the room, Santos Dela Cruz handed the envelope containing the ten
(10) bundles of marked money to Crispin Basilio. Immediately thereafter, a
member of the NBI entrapment team took photographs of Crispin Basilio holding
the envelope.

What charges must be filed against Crispin Basilio? Why?

14
ANSWER: The crime of Direct Bribery was committed. Crispin Basilio demanded
P1,000,000.00 in exchange for the approval of the CAR. Santos Dela Cruz handed
the envelope containing the ten (10) bundles of marked money to Crispin Basilio.
Immediately thereafter, a member of the NBI entrapment team took photographs of
Crispin Basilio holding the envelope. These circumstances fall directly under the
crime of Direct Bribery that the offender be a public officer, that the offender
accepts an offer or a promise or receives a gift or present by himself or through
another, that such offer or promise be accepted, or gift or present received by the
public officer with a view to committing some crime, or in consideration of the
execution of an act which does not constitute a crime, but the act must be unjust, or
to refrain from doing something which it is his official duty to do and that the act
which the offender agrees to perform or which he executes be connected with the
performance of his official duties.

-NOTHING FOLLOWS-

15