Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Crimes mala in se are felonious acts committed by dolo or culpa as defined in the Revised Penal
Code. Lack of criminal intent is a valid defense, except when the crime results from criminal
negligence. On the other hand, crimes mala prohibita are those considered wrong only because
they are prohibited by statute. They constitute violations of mere rules of convenience designed to
secure a more orderly regulation of the affairs of society.
Yes, an act may be malum in se and malum prohibitum at the same time. In People v.Sunico, et
aL. (CA 50 OG 5880) it was held that the omission or failure of election inspectors and poll
clerks to include a voter's name in the registry list of voters is wrong per se because it
disenfranchises a voter of his right to vote. In this regard it is considered as malum in se. Since it
is punished under a special law (Sec. 101 and 103, Revised Election Code), it is considered
malum prohibitum.
B. Anti-Piracy Act
ii. A boarded a plane at the Manila Domestic Airport bound for Davao
City. While the plane was still on the tarmac, its doors still open and
waiting for the last passenger to board, A ordered the pilot P at
gunpoint, to take the plane to Singapore. When P refused, A shot him
to death. What offense/offenses did A commit? Discuss with reasons.
Alternative Answer: Murder because when the pilot was shot the
plane was still in the tarmac and the engine had not yet started.
Coercion could not be committed, or if all, would be incidental to the
killing.
II. Against Fundamental Law of State
a. Human Security Act/Anti-Terrorism
i. Terrorism- Any person who commits an act punishable under any of the
following provisions of the Revised Penal Code
1. Penalty for the crime of terrorism
1) 40 years of imprisonment
2) NO Parole as provided for under Act No. 4103
Note:
Includes accomplices and accessories
EXEMPTION: Accessories who are spouses, ascendants,
descendants, legitimate, natural and adopted brothers and
sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees are
exempt (EXCEPT: if they profit by the crime or assisted the
principal to profit)
2. Conspiracy to commit terrorism
1) Persons who conspire to commit the crime of terrorism shall
suffer the penalty of 40 years of imprisonment
2) Conspiracy when two or more persons come to an
agreement concerning the commission of the crime as
defined in Sec3 and decide to commit the same
3. Accomplice
1) Any person,who not being principal or a conspiratot in the
execution of the crime or conspiracy to commit terrorism by
prevous or simultaneous act = 17years, 4 months 1 day to
20 yrs of imprisonment
b. Anti-Torture Act
i. (a) Physical torture is a form of treatment or punishment inflicted by a person
in authority or agent of a person in authority upon another in his/her custody
that causes severe pain, exhaustion, disability or dysfunction of one or more
parts of the body, such as:
3. electric shock;
4. cigarette burning; burning by electrically heated rods, hot oil, acid; by the
rubbing of pepper or other chemical substances on mucous membranes, or
acids or spices directly on the wound(s);
7. rape and sexual abuse, including the insertion of foreign bodies into the
sex organ or rectum, or electrical torture of the genitals;
11. harmful exposure to the elements such as sunlight and extreme cold;
12. the use of plastic bag and other materials placed over the head to the
point of asphyxiation;
1. blindfolding;
4. prolonged interrogation;
9. denial of sleep/rest;
10. shame infliction such as stripping the person naked, parading him/her in
public places, shaving the victims head or putting marks on his/her body
against his/her will;
c. Custodial Investigation
i. Custodial investigation involves any questioning by law enforcement people
after a person is taken into custody or deprived of his freedom in any
significant manner. That includes "inviting" a person to be investigated in
connection of a crime of which he's suspect and without prejudice to the
"inviting" officer for any violation of law
ii. The rights of a person under custodial investigation are the following:
Note: The immediate family includes the following: spouse, parents, children,
siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, uncles, aunts, nephews, nieces, guardians,
wards and girlfriends and boyfriends.
iii. If the assisting counsel is a private practitioner, he is entitled to the following
amounts for his services in the custodial investigation:
1. Php150 if the crime in question is a light felony
2. Php250 if it's a grave or less grave felony
3. Php350 if it's a capital offense
iv. Penalties
1. If the arresting officer fails to inform the detainee or arrested person
of his rights, he will be sentenced to 8 to 10 years' imprisonment
and/or a fine of Php6,000. And if he was previously convicted for a
similar offense, he gets perpetual absolute disqualification as well.
ii. Case
1. C told his lawyer, Atty. T, to settle the criminal case he filed against
L, and so Atty. T called up through telephone L, and informed him
that C is willing to have the case dismissed provided that L pays P8,
000.00 and makes a public apology. L told Atty. T to call him up the
following day as he would consult his lawyer. The following day
when Atty. T called up L, the latter requested his lawyer Atty. X, who
was in his (L's) office at that time, to secretly listen to the telephone
conversation through a telephone extension. When the P8, 000.00
agreed upon on the telephone was delivered to Atty. T at the
appointed place and time, he (Atty, T) was arrested by the police for
Robbery/Extortion on complaint of L who was accompanied by his
lawyer, Atty. X. Atty. X executed an affidavit stating that he heard
Atty. T demanding P8,000.00 for the withdrawal of the criminal
complaint through a telephone extension. On the basis of this
affidavit, Atty, T filed a criminal complaint against Atty. X and L for
violation of sec. 1 of RA. No. 4200, otherwise known as the Anti-
Wire Tapping Act. which says: "It shall be unlawful for any person
not being authorized by all the parties to any private conversation or
spoken word to tap any wire or cable or by using any other device or
arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept or record such
communication or spoken word by using a device commonly known
as Dictaphone or dictograph or detectaphone, walkie talkie or tape
recorder, or however otherwise described." If you were the Judge,
would you convict or acquit L and his lawyer, Atty. X? Support your
decision with reasons.
Answer: b) Aldo is liable for violating the Dangerous Drugs Act (RA No,
6425, as amended) in performing the act of selling narcotics.
ii. Manny was apprehended In a buy-bust operation during which one (1) deck
of shabu (methamphetamine hydro-chloride) was delivered by him to the
policeman posing as buyer and another deck of shabu was taken from his
pocket after his body was frisked before he was actually brought to the police
precinct. Convicted of violating sections 15 (sale and distribution of
regulated drugs] and 16 (possession or use of regulated drugs] of the
Dangerous Drugs Law, he was sentenced to thirty (30) years of life
Imprisonment and payment of a fine of P20,000.00 (for violating sec. 15) and
to imprisonment of eight (8) years and payment of fine of P6,000.00 (for
violating sec. 16). He then sought the reversal of the decision, on the
following grounds:
First, he could not be convicted of having violated sec. 15 because he
has not yet received the money from the buyer and the sale is not yet
consummated;
Second, his conviction under sec. 16 is erroneous because his possession
of shabu Is absorbed in the charge of illegal sale or delivery; and
Third, it is unbelievable that he would sell the confiscated shabu in a
sari-sari store near the national road open to the public view and to a stranger.
1) If you were the Solicitor General, how would you rebut the arguments
of the accused? Discuss fully.
2) Give your comment with regard to the penalties imposed.
Answer:
1) Manny is liable. The law provides, "shall sell, dispense,
deliver, transport or distribute".
2) Yes. he is also liable because the shabu taken from his
possession or pocket is different from the shabu he was to
deliver to the seller.
3) As to the third reason, it is not unbelievable because
although it is a public place, this kind of sale can always be
clandestinely be made. [People vs. Rey Bernardino, Jan. 28,
1991)
iv. At about 9 o'clock in the morning, a Narcom Group laid a plan to entrap and
apprehend A, a long suspected drug dealer, through a "buy-bust" operation.
At the appointed time, the poseur-buyer approached A who was then with B.
A marked P100 bill was handed over to A who in turn, gave the poseur-buyer
one (1) tea bag of marijuana leaves. The members of the team, who were
then positioned behind thick leaves, closed in but evidently were not swift
enough since A and B were able to run away. Two days later, A was arrested
in connection with another incident. It appears that during the operations, the
police officers were not able to seize the marked money but were able to get
possession of the marijuana tea bag. A was subsequently prosecuted for
violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, otherwise known
as the Dangerous Drugs Act, During the trial, the marked money was not
presented. Can A be held liable? Explain.
Suggested Answer: Yes. A can be held liable. The absence of the marked
money will not create a hiatus in the prosecution's evidence as long as the
sale of the dangerous drugs is adequately proven and the drug subject of the
transaction is presented before the court. There was a perfected contract of
sale of the drug (People vs. Ong Co, 245 SCRA 733; People vs. Zervoulakos,
241 SCRA 625).
vii. A and his fiancee B were walking in the plaza when they met a group of
policemen who had earlier been tipped off that A was in possession of
prohibited drugs. Upon seeing the policemen and sensing that they were after
him, A handed a sachet containing shabu to his fiancee B, telling her to hide
it in her handbag. The policemen saw B placing the sachet inside her
handbag. If B was unaware that A was a drug user or pusher or that what was
inside the sachet given to her was shabu, is she nonetheless liable under the
Dangerous Drugs Act? (5%)
Alternative Answers:
1. Yes, A is correct in filing a motion to quash the information
because Section 3(e) of Republic Act 3019 applies only to
officers and employees of government corporations charged with
the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions, and not to
DPWH, which is not a government corporation.
d. Punishing Public Officials/ Employees who Receive and Private Persons who Give
Gifts on any Occasion, including Christmas
i. Case:
1. Gino was appointed Collector of Customs and was assigned at the
Ninoy Aquino International Airport, Gerry, an importer, hosted a
dinner for 100 persons at the Westin Philippine Plaza in honor of
Gino. What are the offense or offenses committed by Gino and
Gerry?
Answer; Both Gino and Gerry are liable for violation of Presidential
Decree No. 46, which punishes any public official or employee who
receives, directly or indirectly, and for private persons who give,
offer any gift, present or valuable thing on any occasion, including
Christmas, when such gift or valuable thing is given by reason of his
official position, regardless of whether or not the same is for past
favor or favors, or the giver hopes or expects to receive a favor or
better treatment in the future. Being an importer, Gerry reasonably
expects future favor from Gino.
Please take note that with respect to Espiritu Case, taking hold of the
object is enough to consummate the crime; although in the Dirio
case, it is still frustrated because there is inability to dispose freely
the object.
Answer:
1) The retired colonel may be charged with child abuse, in
violation of Rep. Act 7610, a law providing special
protection against child abuse, exploitation, and
discrimination. One of the acts of child abuse or exploitation
penalized under Article VI of RA 7610 is that of keeping
company of a minor who is ten (10) years or more younger
than the offender in a hotel, motel, beer house, disco joint,
pension house, cabaret, sauna or massage parlor, beach
resort, and similar places. Considering that Lt. Col. Agaton is
a retiree pursuant to a compulsory retirement, while the child
he kept company within a private room in the beach resort, is
only 14 years old, there must be an age difference of more
than 10 years between them. This fact plus the circumstance
that Lt. Col. Agaton stayed with the child, a girl, in one room
at such beach resort for two nights, and thereafter he gave
her P1,000.00 "for her services", constitutes the very evil
punished, among other acts, in said law.