CRIMINAL LAW MOCK BAR

1
Yes, the jailhouse lawyer is correct.

The Court held that the issuance of the declaration of the nullity of the first marriage or
previous marriage while the case on bigamy is pending is a defense in bigamy. If the present
jurisprudence is in favor to the accused, it shall be applied retroactively even the accused is
serving his sentence already or his case is pending if the accused is not habitual delinquent.
If the accused is serving his sentence of his conviction of bigamy albeit the existence of the
declaration of nullity of the first or previous marriage, the accused should file petition for
habeas corpus. This is consistent with equal protection clause in the Constitution and to
remove unfairness by the conviction of bigamy due to the previous ruling of the Court.

Here, the first marriage of Horace to Annika was declared null and void by the court during
the pendency of the bigamy case. The present jurisprudence is in favor to Horace, therefore
it can be applied retroactively. Horace is not shown to be habitual delinquent. He is entitled
of the equal protection clause. Horace should file habeas corpus based on the present
jurisprudence so the application of the law will not be unfair to him.

Hence, the present jurisprudence on bigamy is applicable to Horace.

2
No, the ambassador cannot be prosecuted in the Philippines.

Under the Principles of International Law, ambassadors are immune from prosecution in the
country they are assigned. They cannot be prosecuted both in their criminal and civil
liability. They enjoy blanket immunity of protection from all prosecutions. They are
exempted from the application of the local law. They are governed by the laws of their own
country.

Here, the ambassador from Ukraine cannot be prosecuted in the Philippines for his criminal
liability. He has blanket immunity of protection from criminal liability. He is exempted from
the application of the Philippine Law. He is governed by the law of Ukraine.

Hence, the ambassador cannot be prosecuted for his criminal liability in the Philippines.

3
The criminal liabilities of Tony stark, Steve Rogers and the pawnshop are the following:

As to Tony stark, he is liable for theft. Under the Revised Penal Code, a person with intent to
gain, who takes personal property not his own, belonging to other person, without his
consent, without the employment of violence against or intimidation of persons or without
using of force upon things is liable for theft.

Here, Tony stark with intent to gain, took the necklace which he does not own, without the
consent of the owner. He took the necklace without employing violence against or
intimidation of person or without using of force upon things.

As to steve Roger, he is liable for as an accessory to the crime of theft committed by tony
Stark. Under the Revised Penal Code, a person who has knowledge and participate
subsequently after the commission of the crime from profiting in the effects of the crime or
assisting the offender to profit from the effects of the crime is liable as an accessory to the
commission of the crime.

Here, Steve Roger, posess knowledge of the commission of theft. He participates

subsequently after the commission of the crime by profiting in the effects of the crime or
assisting the offender to profits in the effects of the crime.

As to the pawnshop, it is liable for fencing. Under the anti-Fencing Law, the elements of
fencing are; first, there is a commission of theft or robbery. Second, the person deals with
objects which are proceeds from the crime of theft or robbery. Third, the person possess
actual knowledge or should have known that the objects are proceeds from the crime of
theft or robbery considering all circumstances. . Fourth, the person has intent to gain.

Here, the pawnshop deals with an objects which are proceeds from theft. The pawnshop
should have known that the objects are proceeds from the crime of theft considering all
circumstances. The pawnshop has intent to gain.

4 (a)
Rodrigo is liable for attempted homicide.

Under the Revised Penal Code, the person is liable for attempted stage of the felony if he
commences the commission of the felony directly by an overt act and does the execute all
the acts that would produce the felony by causes other than the own spontaneous
desistance of the offender. The offender is liable for attempted homicide if there is intent to
kill the target victim.

Here, Rodrigo commences the commission of homicide directly by an overt act which is the
pressing of the trigger of the gun. He was not able to execute all acts that would produce
the homicide because the trigger jammed, this constitute a cause other than the own
spontaneous desistance of Rodrigo.
 B
Yes, Rodrigo would still be criminally liable.

Under the Revised Penal Code, the person shall be liable of performing acts that would be
an offense against person or property were it not for the inherent impossibility of its
accomplishment or the employment of inadequate or ineffective means.

Here, the act would be an offense against person. There was inherent impossibility of
accomplishment or employment of inadequate or ineffective means because because the
gun do not have bullet.

5
No, the tricycle driver may not validly convicted of two counts of frustrated murders.

As to the security guard, the tricycle drive is liable for frustrated homicide. Under the
Revised Penal Code, the offender commits the frustrated stage of the felony if he performs
all the acts of execution to produce the felony but nevertheless the felony was not produce
by reason of causes or accident independent of the will of the perpetrator.

Here, the tricycle driver performs all the acts of execution to produce the felony. The
security guard was bloodied and sustain mortal hack wounds. But nevertheless, the murder
was not consummated because of medical attendance which is a cause other than the
independent will of the perpetrator.

As to the street vendor, the tricycle driver is liable for attempted murder. Under the Revised
Penal Code, the person is liable for attempted stage of the felony if he commences the
commission of the felony directly by an overt act and does the perform all the acts of
execution that would produce the felony by causes other than the own spontaneous
desistance of the offender.

Here, the tricycle driver commences the commission of the crime directly by an overt act
which is attacking with bolo. He was not able to perform all acts of execution to produce the
felony because the street vendor was able to ward off the bolo attack and flee which is a
cause other than the spontaneous desistance of the offender.

6
No, the judge is not correct in appreciating all the circumstances.

The Court held that both the aggravating and qualifying circumstances must be alleged in
the information to be appreciated by the court. An aggravating or qualifying circumstance
not indicated in the information cannot be appreciated in court although proven by
evidence. To appreciate the aggravating or qualifying circumstance would be a violation of
the constitutional right of the accused to be inform of the accusation against him .

Here, the qualifying circumstance of recidivism was not allege in the information. It cannot
be appreciated although it is proven by evidence because to appreciate it would be to
violate the constitution right of the accuse to be inform of the accusation against him.

Hence, the judge should not appreciate recidivism.

7(a)

The effect of the death of Kin Pin is both his criminal and civil liability shall be extinguish

Under the Revised Penal code, the death of the accused before the final judgment of his
case shall extinguish both his criminal liability and civil liability arising from the delict.

Here, Kin Pin was charged of violation of anti-graft and corruption act. With his death, both
his criminal liability and civil liability arising from the delict shall be extinguished.

B
The criminal liability of Echo and Elektra is they are liable for grave threat.

Under the Revised Penal Code, a person who threat another with an act constituting a crime
shall be liable for grave threat.

Here, echo and Elektra threaten the sheriff of an act constituting a crime. The threaten that
something untoward might happen to him or that he might be slapped with a court case
constitutes a crime.

8
The motion to quash should not be granted.

Under the principle of Territoriality, the Philippine court acquires jurisdiction of cause of
actions or violations of domestic law which occurred in the Philippines. The Philippine court
acquires jurisdiction of cause of actions of Filipinos occurred in the Philippines.

Here, the cause of action is psychological violence under RA 9262. The cause of action
occurred in the Philippines. The parties are both Filipinos, the husband Kokold and wife
Nymfee. Therefore, Philippine courts have jurisdiction of the case.

Hence, the Philippine court have jurisdiction of violation of RA9262

 9
No, the jail warden cannot undergo subsidiary imprisonment.

Under the Revised Penal code, if the principal penalty of the sentence of the prisoner is
exceeding 6 years, there shall be no imposition of subsidiary imprisonment if the prisoner
fails or refuses to pay the fine. The maximum period of imprisonment shall be the basis to
determine if the principal penalty exceeded six years.

Here, the maximum period of imprisonment is 8 years of prision mayor. The principal
penalty exceeded 6 years. There will be no imposition of subsidiary imprisonment in case
the prisoner cannot pay the fine.

Hence, there can be no imposition of subsidiary imprisonment for imprisonment exceeding

6 years.

10
Pedro is liable for frustrated homicide and physical injuries.

As to Juan, Pedro is liable for frustrated homicide. Under the Revised Penal Code, the
offender commits the frustrated stage of the felony if he performs all the acts of execution
to produce the felony but nevertheless the felony was not produce by reason of causes or
accident independent of the will of the perpetrator.

Here, Juan was hit in the chest. Pedro performed already all the acts of execution to
produce the felony but nevertheless the felony was not produce due to medical attendance
which is a cause other than the independent will of the perpetrator.

As to John, Pedro is liable for physical injuries. Under the Revised Penal Code, the person is
liable if he wound, box , assault another person. The person is not attempted felony of
homicide if he did not perform all the acts of execution to produce the felony because of his
spontaneous desistance. His spontaneous desistance is his defense in the attempted
homicide. But Pedro shall be liable for the acts he have committed already.

Here John suffered a bullet wound on his left shoulder. Pedro did not perform all the acts of
execution to produce the homicide because of his spontaneous desistance. But Pedro is
liable for physical injuries because he have committed it already by wounding john.

11 (a)
Trish committed Estafa by misappropriation .
Under the Revised Penal Code, a person who misappropriates or converts personal property
to the prejudice of another, which the person received the personal property in trust, for
commission, for administration or under any obligation to deliver or return the personal
property is liable for Estafa by misappropriation.

Here, Trish received the gold ring in trust for Tina, the owner, under the obligation to return
it. But Trish misappropriates the gold ring by pawning it to the prejudice of tina.

Hence, estafa by misappropriation is committed.

No, Tina may not recover the ring from Nilda

Under the Sales Law, the owner of the property cannot recover it from other person if it was
purchase by the other person in a public sale except if the owner will reimburse the
purchase for the price of the thing.

Here, Nilda acquire the gold ring through a public sale which is the public auction. Tina can
only acquire the gold ring if she will reimburse Nilda for the price of the ring sold in the
public auction.

Hence, Tina should reimburse Nilda to acquire possession again of the ring.

12
Yes, the criminal case of adultery will prosper.

The Court held that an even though the offended husband who initially forgave his wife for
her act of adultery can still file subsequently for a criminal of action of adultery against her.
the initial pardon does not bar the husband in filing the criminal case. There was no true
pardon at all because the husband did not give up in filing the case.

Here, the Kokold, the husband initially forgave Nymfee, the wife. This does not bar the
husband to subsequently file for adultery against her. There was no true pardon at all since
the husband did not give up the filing of the case.

13
The crimes Tom Cruz are liable are Estafa by issuance of bouncing check and violation of
special law BP 22.
First, tom Cruz is liable for Estafa by issuance of bouncing check. Under the revised Penal
Code, a person is liable if at the time of issuance of the check prior or simultaneous with the
parting of the offended party of his property, the person does not have funds in the bank or
does not have sufficient funds in the bank to cover the amount of the check. And the person
does not make good to cover the amount of the check within 3 days after receipt of notice
of dishonor from the bank, holder, payee.

Here, Tom Cruz issued a check simultaneous with the delivery of the books to him. At the
time of issuance of the check, Tom Cruz did not have fund in the bank to cover the amount
of the check since his account is close. He was sent notice dishonor by the payee but failed
to make good the check within three days.

Second, Tom Cruz is liable for violation of special law BP 22. Under the special law of BP 22,
the person is liable for the mere issuance of the check if at the time of its issuance , the
person do not have funds in the bank or do not have arrangement with the bank to cover
the amount of the check. The person is liable if he failed to make good with the check within
5 banking days after receipt of dishonor from the bank, holder, payee.

Here, Tom Cruz is issued a check wherein he do not have funds in the bank to cover the
check or did not have arrangements in the bank to cover the amount of the check. He did
not make good with the amount of the check within 5 banking days after receipt of the
notice of the dishonor from the bank, holder, payee.

14
Yes, Pedro may be held liable for perjury.

Under the Revised Penal Code, if the document is required by law to be under oath and the
person falsify a material information in the document, the person is liable for perjury.

Here, the certification against forum shopping is required by law to be under oath. The
falsification of material information in the certification constitutes perjury.

15

If I were the judge, I would convict Peter, Tony, Steve of violation of Section 3e of RA3019.

Under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, the public officer is liable for graft and
corruption if he entered into with a transaction or contract that caused undue injury to the
government.
Here, the contract or transaction entered into by Peter, Tony and Steve caused undue
injury to the government by the overprice of the medicines.
16
Ghor is not criminally liable.

Under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, the offender aside from the possession of
the prohibited drugs must have also the intent to possess such drugs. The possession of the
drugs must be coupled with intention.

Here, Ghor albeit in possession of the prohibited drugs, Ghor do not have the intention of
possessing them. He was just given instructions what to do, he does not know what is inside
the bag and he does have the intention to possess the contents of the bag especially that he
was not the owner of it.

17
If I were the counsel of Salim, I would raise the defense that there was no compliance of the
proper procedure of inventory of the dangerous drugs .

Under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, after confiscation of the drugs, the
apprehending officer shall make inventory of it and photograph them in the presence of the
accused, representative of the media, representative of the DOJ and in the presence of an
elected public official. They shall sign the inventory and within 24 hours the drug shall be
sent to PDEA.

Here, the apprehending officer did not conduct the inventory and photograph in the
presence of the accused, representative of the media, representative of the DOJ and of an
elected public official.

Hence, there was no compliance of proper procedure of inventory of drugs.

18