YES OR NO

QUESTION
2004 BAR EXAMINATIONS

ON HIS WAY HOME FROM OFFICE, ZZ

RODE IN A JEEPNEY. SUBSEQUENTLY,
XX BOARDED THE SAME JEEPNEY.
UPON REACHING A SECLUDED SPOT IN
QC, XX PULLED OUT A GRENADE FROM
HIS BAG AND ANNOUNCED A HOLD-UP.
HE TOLD ZZ TO SURRENDER HIS
WATCH, WALLET AND CELLPHONE.
FEARING FOR HIS LIFE, ZZ JUMPED
OUT OF THE VEHICLE. BUT AS HE
FELL, HIS HEAD HIT THE PAVEMENT,
CAUSING HIS INSTANT DEATH.

IS XX LIABLE FOR ZZS DEATH?

EXPLAIN BRIEFLY. (5%)

Suggested Answer:

YES.
XX IS LIABLE FOR ZZS DEATH BECAUSE
HIS ACTS OF PULLING OUT A GRENADE
AND ANNOUNCING A HOLD-UP, COUPLED
WITH A DEMAND FOR THE WATCH,
WALLET, AND CELLPHONE OF ZZ IS
FELONIOUS, AND SUCH FELONIOUS ACT
WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF ZZS
JUMPING
OUT
OF
THE
JEEPNEY,
RESULTING IN THE LATTERS DEATH.

STATED
OTHERWISE,
THE
DEATH OF ZZ WAS THE DIRECT,
NATURAL
AND
LOGICAL
CONSEQUENCE
OF
XXS
FELONIOUS
ACT
WHICH
CREATED
AN
IMMEDIATE
SENSE OF DANGER IN THE
MIND OF ZZ WHO TRIED TO
AVOID
SUCH
DANGER
BY
JUMPING
OUT
OF
THE
JEEPNEY (PEOPLE V. APRA, 27
SCRA 1037 [1969]).

YES. XX is liable for ZZs death

Direct answer:

Affirmation

Because his acts of pulling out a

grenade and announcing a hold-up,
coupled with a demand for the watch,
wallet, and cellphone of ZZ is felonious

Justification of
the direct answer
to the question

Assertion
Immediate support
Meat of the
answer

and such felonious act was the

proximate cause of ZZs jumping out
of the jeepney, resulting in the
latters death.
Explaining with brevity
Using of technical terms
Ability of examinee to write down
basic laws

Stated otherwise,
the death of ZZ was the direct,
natural and logical consequence of
XXs felonious act
Proximate Cause

which created an immediate

sense of danger in the mind of ZZ
who tried to avoid such danger by
jumping out of the jeepney
Logical relationship
Cause and Effect

(People v. Apra, 27 SCRA

1037 [1969]).
Specific citations

Legal Provisions

Case Laws

TRUE OR FALSE
QUESTION
2009 BAR EXAMINATIONS

A PERSON WHO, ON THE OCCASION

OF ROBBERY, KILLS A BYSTANDER
BY ACCIDENT IS LIABLE FOR TWO
SEPARATE CRIMES:

ROBBERY AND RECKLESS

IMPRUDENCE RESULTING
IN HOMICIDE.

Suggested Answer:

FALSE.

ONLY ONE CRIME OF ROBBERY

WITH HOMICIDE IS CONSTITUTED
BECAUSE THE REVISED PENAL
CODE PUNISHES THE CRIME AS
ONLY ONE INDIVISIBLE OFFENSE
WHEN A KILLING, WHETHER
INTENTIONAL OR ACCIDENTAL,
WAS COMMITTED BY REASON OR
ON OCCASION OF A ROBBERY
(ART. 294[1], RPC; PEOPLE V.
MABASA, 65 PHIL. 658 [1938]).

Direct answer:

FALSE.
Negation

Only one crime of robbery with

homicide is constituted
Immediate
support/reasoning

because the Revised Penal Code

punishes the crime as only one
indivisible offense when a killing,
whether intentional or accidental,
was committed by reason or on
occasion of a robbery
Justifying
conclusion

Legal
Rule/Basis

(Art. 294[1], RPC; People v.

Mabasa, 65 Phil. 658 [1938]).

Specific citations

PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT IS ASKED

BE RESPONSIVE TO THE QUESTION
ASKED AND BE DIRECT TO THE POINT

SUPPORT YOUR ANSWER

APPLY/CITE THE LAW

PROVIDE CITATIONS WHEN
YOU CAN
DONT GO FOR OVERWHELMING WORDS