2022 Criminal Law Bar Exam By Judge Marlo Campanilla

1. Police officer John ran after Randy who had just killed Willy in John’s presence. John fired at Randy in
an attempt to stop him in his tracks. In response, Randy fired back at John, hitting him. John was
seriously wounded but survived due to timely medical assistance. Randy was then charged with

Frustrated Homicide. During the trial, Randy claimed self-defense.

Is Randy’s claim of self-defense tenable? Explain briefly.

Answer: No, the performance of duty is not unlawful aggression.

2. Moe, Curly, and Larry were drinking and singing inside a karaoke bar when suddenly, Buboy entered
the bar and without warning, immediately shot all three of them using a caliber .45 pistol.
Thereafter, Buboy ran out of the bar to escape. Moe, Curly, and Larry died instantly due to gunshot
wounds in their heads and bodies. With the help of eyewitnesses, Buboy was arrested. After inquest,
the prosecutor charged Buboy with three counts of Homicide.

Do you agree with the charge of Homicide against Buboy? Explain briefly.

Answer: No, three counts of murder qualified by the circumstance of treachery

3. Michael was driving along the highway when he executed a prohibited U-Turn. Dyords, a police
officer, accosted Michael for the traffic violation. A verbal argument ensued between them. Dyords
suddenly drew his service firearm, and pointed it at Michael. Dyords ordered Michael to alight from his
car, which the latter obeyed. Dyords then handcuffed Michael and pinned his head and body against the
pavement until he could no longer breathe. Michael died. Charged with Homicide, Dyords interposed
the exempting circumstance of accident as a defense.

If you were the judge, how would you resolve Dyords’ defense? Explain briefly.

Answer: Requisites of accident: lawful act, without dolo, without culpa. Arresting for traffic violation is
not a lawful act. He should have confiscated the driver's license instead of arresting him (Luz v. People,
G.R. No. 197788, February 29, 2012; People vs. Cristobal, G.R. No. 234207, June 10, 2019; Picardal vs.
People, June 19, 2019,G.R. No. 235749) Unlawfully arresting the victim is arbitrary detention. (See
criminal law reviewer, vol 2, 2022 edition by Judge Campanilla) Applying Article 4, he is liable for the
wrongful act (homicide) done although it differs from the wrongful act (arbitrary detention) intended
4. Bernardo, a mayoralty candidate of Osram City, wanted to eliminate Yori, his political opponent. Yori
announced his intention to run for mayor of the same city. A month before the filing of candidacy,
Bernardo and Benjamin met at a hotel and discussed their plan to kill Yori on the day when he would file
his certificate of candidacy. Based on their agreement, Bernardo would provide the guns and the money,
while Benjamin would provide the personnel to cordon off all roads leading to the COMELEC’s local
office.

On the day of the execution of the plan, however, Benjamin flew to Manila to avoid being involved in
the planned killing of Yori. Bernardo, determined to kill Yori, convened his own armed group and
laid out a new plan to kill Yori, and in accordance with it, his armed group patrolled all the roads leading
to the COMELEC’s local office. Bernardo remained in his house and monitored the execution of the
plan from there. As soon as Yori and his supporters passed by the main road at around 200 p.m.,
Bernardo’s armed group opened fire at them. Yori was unharmed as he was inside a bulletproof vehicle,
but ten of his supporters were killed. Bernardo, the members of his armed group, and Benjamin were
later charged with ten counts of Murder for the death of Yori’s supporters and one count of Attempted
Murder of Yori.

Discuss the criminal liability for the crimes charged against each of the following: (i) Bernardo, (ii) the
members of Bernardo’s armed group, and (iii) Benjamin. Explain briefly. 5 points)

Answer: Benjamin – principal by inducement; Bernardo and his men liable based on collective
responsibility; aberratiu ictus. They are liable for the wrongful act done (10 murders and 1 attempted
murder) although it differs from the wrongful act (one murder) intended.

In my pre-week materials, pre-day materials, 7 days lecture, and 2 days forecast lecture, I explained the
following: If the crimes committed against the target victim and third person, who was hit by reason of
aberratio ictus, were produced by a single act, the accused is liable for a complex crime. Thus, a single
act of throwing a grenade or firing a gun killing one and injuring another constitutes a complex crime of
murder with attempted murder. (People v. Julio Guillen, G.R. No. L-1477, January 18, 1950; People vs.
Bendecio, G.R. No. 235016, September 08, 2020) However, the accused is liable for separate crimes
despite the application of the aberratio ictus rule, and not a complex crime in the following cases: (a) If
the bullet that killed the target victim is different from the bullet that killed the third person, who was hit
by reason of aberratio ictus (Cruz vs. People, G.R. No. 216642, September 8, 2020, Justice Caquioa)

5. A police officer responded to a disturbance call at around 130 p.m. in an apartment in Quezon City.
Upon his arrival, the police officer encountered Sisa stabbing her 1-year old child with a kitchen knife.
The police officer grabbed Sisa and the latter threw the knife on the floor. Sisa was immediately taken
into custody. Despite suffering multiple stab wounds on her back, the child survived. During the trial,
Sisa insisted that she can only be held liable for Attempted Parricide because she voluntarily desisted
when she threw down the knife.

Is Sisa’s contention tenable? Explain briefly. 5 points)

Answer: The desistance is voluntary but not spontaneous. The term spontaneous is not equivalent to
voluntary. Even if the desistance is voluntary, the same could not exempt the offender from liability for
an attempted felony if there is an external constraint. The term “spontaneous” means proceeding from
natural feeling or native tendency without external constraint; it is synonymous with impulsive,
automatic, and mechanical. (People v. Lizada, G.R. Nos. 143468-71, January 24, 2003, En Banc)
Moreover, spontaneous desistance is a defense in attempted felony. If there is spontaneous desistance,
she could not be held liable for attempted parricide.

6. Anna and Barbara, while working inside their sari-sari store, saw Javier and Jorge robbing an elderly
woman of her purse and brutally beating her to death. Anna and Barbara immediately ran outside and,
when they tried to help the elderly woman, Javier and Jorge stabbed both of them. Thereafter, Javier
and Jorge ran away with the elderly woman’s purse. Anna suffered one stab wound which punctured
her lung, but she survived due to timely medical assistance. Barbara, however, died as a result of nine
stab wounds, one of which pierced through her spleen.

If you were the prosecutor, what crime/s will you file against Javier and Jorge for: (i) the death of the
elderly woman, (ii) the death of Barbara, and (iii) the injuries sustained by Anna? Explain briefly. 5
points)

Answer: Robbery with homicide. Physical injuries shall be integrated into the special complex crime of
robbery with homicide.

In my pre-week materials, pre-day materials, 7 days lecture, and 2 days forecast lecture, pre-week
lecture, and last-minute lecture, and Facebook posting on 2022 possible bar exam question, I explained
the following: In this special complex crime, it is immaterial that several persons are killed. It is also
immaterial that aside from the homicides, rapes are committed by reason or on the occasion of the
robbery. Hence, rapes committed against X, Y and Z in the course of robbery shall be integrated into one
and indivisible felony of robbery with homicide. (People vs. Daguman, G.R. No. 219116, August 26, 2020)
In robbery with homicide, the victim of the robbery need not be the victim of the homicide, (People vs.
Daguman, G.R. No. 219116, August 26, 2020) and it is immaterial that the victim of homicide is a
bystander (People vs. Barut, G.R. No. L-42666 March 13, 1979), a responding policeman (People vs.
Pelagio, G.R. No. L-16177, May 24, 1967) or one of the robbers. (People vs. Casabuena, G.R. No. 246580,
June 23, 2020) 7. One information for murder with special aggravating circumstance of using loose
firearm (Section 29 of RA No. 10591) should have been filed and not two informations.

7. Jesusa, a mayoralty candidate of the Municipality of Jaen, Nueva Ecija during the 2019 local elections,
was ambushed and gunned down by Jhudas, a gun for hire. Jhudas was arrested at a COMELEC
checkpoint just after the incident. The firearm he used, a baby Armalite, was verified to be without any
license. During the interrogation, Jhudas admitted that Pontio, the rival mayoralty candidate of Jesusa,
paid him Php 1,000,000.00 to assassinate Jesusa. Due to Jhudas’ admission, coupled with the sworn
statement of an eyewitness, the prosecutor filed two Informations, one for Murder and one for Illegal
Possession of Firearm, against both Jhudas and Pontio.
Do you agree with the prosecutor’s charges against Jhudas and Pontio? Explain briefly. 5 points)

Answer: No, one information for murder with special aggravating circumstance of using loose firearm
Section 29 of RA No. 10591 should have been filed and not two informations.

8. Jenny obtained a fire insurance from YG Insurance Co. YG. In payment of the policy, she issued a
postdated check payable to cash in the amount of Php 15,000.00 which was handed to Lisa, YG’s sales
agent. Lisa did not remit the check to YG. Instead, Lisa deposited it in her husband’s bank account, but
the check was dishonored for having been drawn from a closed account.

What crime, if any, was committed by Lisa and, if there was any, what is its prescribed penalty? Explain
briefly. 5 points)

Answer: Impossible crime of theft (Jacinto v. People, G.R. No. 162540, July 13, 2009;

9. Madame X, with the promise of money, and without the use of force, intimidation, or threat, enticed
Zia, a 15-year-old, to engage in oral sex by allowing Madame X to lick Zia’s vagina. Zia consented
because she needed the money.

What crime, if any, was committed by Madame X? Explain briefly. 5 points

Answer: Statutory sexual assault and child prostitution. Section 5, if the child exploited in prostitution is
under 16 years of age, he shall be prosecuted for lascivious conduct under RPC. In case of lascivious
conduct, the penalty is reclusion temporal in its medium period. Sexual assault is within the
contemplation of lascivious conduct.

Note: In my pre-week materials, pre-day materials, 7 days lecture, and 2 days forecast lecture, pre-week
lecture, and last-minute lecture, and Facebook posting, I explained the following: If the child is under 16
years old, and the act of the offender constitutes simple sexual assault and sexual abuse, the accused
shall be prosecuted for sexual assault under the Revised Penal Code in relation to RA No. 7610. Under
Section 5 (b) of RA No. 7610, when the child subjected to sexual abuse is under 16 years of age, the
perpetrators shall be prosecuted for rape or lascivious conduct, Provided, That the penalty for lascivious
conduct shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period. Since reclusion temporal in its medium period
under RA No. 7610 is higher than the penalty (of prision mayor) for sexual assault under the Revised
Penal Code, it is only fair for the child to impose the graver penalty under RA No. 7610. (People vs. ZZZ,
G.R. No. 232500, July 28, 2020) In sum, sexual assault is within the contemplation of the words
“lascivious conduct” in Section 5 of RA No. 8710.
10. During the 2022 national elections, Bern posted on her Facebook page a statement that Alfredo, an
incumbent mayor vying for re-election, has a pending corruption case with the Sandiganbayan for
pocketing Php 20,000,000.00 of public funds under his custody. Czarina, Bern’s friend, saw the post and
commented online, stating: “Bhie, true yan. Alfredo is so corrupt. Marami ding binabahay yan.
Sugarol pa!” Donnabel, also Bern’s friend, reacted to Bern’s post by clicking the “like” button. Another
person, Justine, who is a stranger to Bern and her friends, but who claims to be a crusader for good
governance, came across the said post. Finding it relevant to her advocacy and crusade, Justine shared
the link to Bern’s post on her Twitter account.

Who among Bern, Czarina, Donnabel, and Justine, if any, are liable for the crime of Cyberlibel? Explain
briefly. 5 points)

Answer: Bern, not liable. Privilege communication, Article 354 of RPC; Czarina – Cyberlibel. Donnabel –
Not Liable; Disini v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 203335, February 18, 2014 (See: Criminal Law Reviewer,
Vol 2, 2022 Edition by Judge Marlo Campanilla)

11. On May 15, 2013 at around 300 a.m., Lucy, Mary, and Raphael were on board a passenger
jeepney, with Raphael behind the wheel. They were traversing the highway on the southbound lane.
Meanwhile, a Virgen Bus, driven by Kiko, was traveling along the northbound lane. Kiko overtook the
vehicle in front of him, which caused him to occupy the opposite lane where the jeepney was on.
With the Virgen Bus traveling at a high speed, Raphael tried to avoid the collision but failed. The bus hit
the jeepney which resulted in Raphael’s death, serious physical injuries to Lucy and Mary, and
extensive damage to the jeepney amounting to Php 500,000.00. The public prosecutor filed two
Informations charging Kiko for two separate offenses: (i) Reckless Imprudence resulting in Serious
Physical Injuries for the injuries suffered by the passengers; and (ii) Reckless Imprudence resulting in
Homicide and Damage to Property for Raphael’s death and the damage to the jeepney.

Is the public prosecutor, correct? Explain briefly. 5 points)

Answer: Single information for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide, physical injuries and damage
to property should have been filed (Ivler v. Modesto-San Pedro, G.R. No. 172716, November 17, 2010;
(See: Criminal Law Reviewer, Vol 1, 2022 Edition by Judge Marlo Campanilla; Sayang nasa old free
material ko it) Note: I discussed Ivler case in my 7-days lecture 12. Acquit; gluta paraphernalia yn People
vs. Cuico, G.R. No. 232293, December 09, 2020, Justice Caguioa 13. Not liable. No intent to degrade,
debased and demean (Brinas vs. People, G.R. No. 254005, June 23, 2021)

Note: In my pre-week materials, pre-day materials, 7 days lecture, and 2 days forecast lecture, preweek
lecture, and 4 hours last-minute lecture, and Facebook posting on possible 2022 bar exam question, I
explained as follows: In Brinas vs. People, G.R. No. 254005, June 23, 2021, accused, a directress of
Montessori school, uttered "pinakamalalandi, pinakamalilibog, pinakamahadera at hindot, Mga putang
ina kayo” against two minor students. Accused’ acts were only done in the heat of anger, made after she
had just learned that the complainants had deceivingly used her daughter's name to send a text message
to another student, in what accused thought was part of a bigger and harmful scheme against the
student body. The accused was acquitted of child abuse for failure to prove intent to degrade the
complainants.

12. Sometime in 2011, while police officers were conducting a foot patrol in connection with the report
of rampant illegal activities in the area, police officer Pepe saw Raul inside a small shanty holding a
disposable syringe. Being a police officer for almost 15 years and having previously made more than ten
arrests involving possession of drug paraphernalia, Pepe entered through the open door of Raul’s
shanty and arrested him. Inside the shanty, 23 more pieces of disposable syringes and empty ampules
were seized from Raul. Pepe immediately marked the seized items, took photographs thereof, and
conducted an inventory in the presence of Raul, a barangay kagawad, a representative from the
Department of Justice DOJ, and a media practitioner. The seized items were turned over to the
evidence custodian, who kept them in a sealed container in the police station. During the trial of Raul for
the crime of Illegal Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, police officer Pepe, the sole witness for the
prosecution, testified as narrated above. After which, the prosecution rested its case. The defense did
not present any evidence.

If you were the judge, would you convict or acquit Raul for the crime charged? Explain briefly. 5 points

Answer: Acquit; gluta paraphernalia yn People vs. Cuico, G.R. No. 232293,
December 09, 2020, Justice Caguioa

13. Joben, a school principal, called high school students Paula and Gina, both 15 years old, to the
faculty room regarding the sexual text message circulating around campus which made reference to
Joben’s daughter. In front of teachers and some students, Joben shouted at Paula and Gina, asking them
who sent the said text message. Joben also threatened to sue them and said: “Siguro nainggit kayo sa
anak ko kasi maganda sya, matalino at mayaman. Sabihin nyo kasi sa mga magulang nyo magsumikap
sila para maging mayaman din kayo. Di yung tatamad-tamad.” Joben then raised her middle finger in
front of Paula and Gina, saying “Mga burikat (whore)!” Later that day, Paula and Gina narrated the
incident to their parents and said that they were ashamed of going back to school.

Is Joben guilty of violating Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610 for other acts of child abuse? Explain
briefly. 5 points)

Answer: Not liable. No intent to degrade, debased and demean Brinas vs. People, G.R. No. 254005,
June 23, 2021

Note: In my pre-week materials, pre-day materials, 7 days lecture, and 2 days forecast lecture, pre-week
lecture, and 4 hours last-minute lecture, and Facebook posting on possible 2022 bar exam question, I
explained as follows In Brinas vs. People, G.R. No. 254005, June 23, 2021, accused, a directress of
Montessori school, uttered "pinakamalalandi, pinakamalilibog, pinakamahadera at hindot, Mga putang
ina kayo” against two minor students. Accused’ acts were only done in the heat of anger, made after she
had just learned that the complainants had deceivingly used her daughter's name to send a text
message to another student, in what accused thought was part of a bigger and harmful scheme against
the student body. The accused was acquitted of child abuse for failure to prove intent to degrade the
complainants.

14. On February 25, 2019, Bob approached Edward to borrow Php 100,000.00 purportedly to settle
some obligations, promising that he would pay the loan using a postdated check. Convinced by Bob's
promises of repayment with interest, and because of their closeness as former classmates in high
school, Edward agreed to lend the said amount. As payment, Bob made, drew, issued in favor of, and
delivered to Edward in the latter's residence at No. 112 Maria Orosa St., Ermita, Manila, CBC Savings
Bank Check No. 32710 postdated August 25, 2019 in the amount of Php 105,000.00. When the check
was presented for payment on its due date in CBC Savings Bank Quezon City Branch, it was dishonored
due to: “Drawn Against Insufficient Funds” DAIF. On January 22, 2020, Edward sent a demand letter to
Bob to pay the face value of the check, but said demand, although received by Bob, was not heeded.
Hence, the check remained unpaid, with no arrangement for its payment.

Draft the appropriate Information, complete with caption and title, charging Bob for violation of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22. 5 points)

Answer: Draft information

15. In 2003, the Province of Davao del Sur purchased two vehicles for the use of the Governor and Vice
Governor, respectively. The purchase requests, which were all signed by Luis as then Governor of
the province, requested for the acquisition of one unit of Ford Range XLT 44 and one unit of Toyota
Hilux 44. The procurement of the subject vehicles did not undergo competitive public bidding as it
was
effected through direct purchase. The mode of procurement was approved by the members of the Bids
and Awards Committee BAC of the province. The two vehicles were delivered to the provincial
government, and after inspection and acceptance by the concerned officials, payments were issued to
the suppliers. Subsequently, a complaint was filed by a concerned citizen before the Office of the
Ombudsman-Mindanao OMB claiming that the purchase of the provincial government violated the
procurement law. The OMB, after due investigation, verified that the provincial government did not
comply with the required procedure of the procurement law. Based on this finding, the OMB filed with
the Sandiganbayan an Information against Luis and the members of the BAC for violation of Section 3(e)
of Republic Act No. 3019. The Sandiganbayan found Luis and the members of the BAC guilty on
the sole reason that violation of the procurement law constitutes evident bad faith and manifest
partiality on the part of the accused.

Is the Sandiganbayan correct? Explain briefly. 5 points)

Answer: Not liable for violation of RA No. 3019 Note: In my pre-week materials, pre-day materials, 7
days lecture, and 2 days forecast lecture, and Facebook posting on possible 2022 bar exam question, I
explained as follows: A violation of a law (e.g., a law on public bidding) that is not penal in nature does
not, as it cannot, automatically translate into a violation of Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019. (Concurring
opinion of Justice Caguioa, Villarosa vs. People, G.R. Nos. 233155-63, June 23, 2020) Violations of the
applicable procurement laws (that generally required public bidding) do not mean that the elements of
the crime under Section 3 (e) of RA No. 3019 are already present as a matter of course. For there to be a
violation under Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019 based on a breach of applicable procurement laws, one
cannot solely rely on the mere fact that a violation of procurement laws has been committed. It must be
shown that (1) the violation of procurement laws caused undue injury to any party or gave any private
party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference; and (2) the accused acted with evident bad faith,
manifest partiality, or gross inexcusable negligence. (Martel vs. People, G.R. No. 224720-23, February 2,
2021, Justice Caquioa) such as awarding contract without public bidding to a relative (Cabrera v. People,
G.R. Nos. 191611-14, July 29, 2019; People v. Austria, G.R. 243897, June 08, 2020) or involving
overpriced fire extinguishers and the supplies. (Oani v. People, G.R. No. 139984, March 31, 2005) Note:
Please follow my Facebook page account: marlo campanilla for updates and developments in criminal
law