XI

Wielding loose firearms, Rene and Roan held up a bank. After taking the bank’s
money, the robbers ran towards their getaway car, pursued by the bank security guards.
As the security guards were closing in on the robbers, the two fired their firearms at the
pursuing security guards. As a result, one of the security guards was hit on the head
causing his immediate death.

For the taking of the bank’s money and killing of the security guard with the use
of loose firearms, the robbers were charged in court in two separate informations, one
for robbery with homicide attended by the aggravating circumstance of use of loose
firearms, and the other for illegal possession of firearms.

Are the indictments correct? (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The indictments are partly correct. The crime committed is robbery with homicide but
being a special composite crime no other charge may accompany it. The use of loose
firearm, pursuant to R.A. 10951, can only be considered as a special aggravating
circumstance.

XII

Orphaned when still an infant, Rocky lived under the care of his grandmother
Rosario. Now 18, Rocky entered Rosario’s bedroom who was then outside doing her
daily marketing. He ransacked the bedroom and took Rosario’s money and valuables
amounting to PhP100,000.

When Rosario came home, she found her room in disarray, and her money and
valuables gone. She confronted Rocky, who confessed to taking the money and
valuables in order to pay his debts.

(a) What crime, if any, did Rocky commit? (2.5%)

(b) Does he incur criminal and/or civil liability? (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(a) Rocky committed the crime of qualified theft as defined under Article 310 of the
Revised Penal Code. Under the said provision, theft becomes qualified when it
is, among others, committed with grave abuse of confidence. The grave abuse of
confidence must be the result of the relation by reason of dependence,
guardianship, or vigilance between one accused and the offended party that
 might create a high degree of confidence which the accused abused. (People v.
Tanchangco, G.R. 177761, April 18, 2012)

(b) Rocky did not incur criminal liability but incurred civil liability. Under Art. 332(1) of
the Revised Penal Code, no criminal but only civil liability shall result from the
commission of the crime of theft committed or caused mutually by the spouse,
ascendants and descendants or relatives by affinity in the same line. Rocky is the
grandson of the offended party bringing him in the ambit of those who are
exempted from criminal liability.

XIII

The brothers Roberto and Ricardo Ratute, both Filipino citizens, led a group of
armed men in seizing a southern island in the Philippines, and declaring war against the
duly constituted government of the country. The Armed Forces of the Philippines
(AFP), led by its Chief of Staff, General Riturban, responded and a full scale war
ensued between the AFP and the armed men led by the brothers. The armed conflict
raged for months.

When the brothers-led armed men were running out of supplies, Ricalde, also
Filipino, and a good friend and supporter of the Ratute brothers, was tasked to leave for
abroad in order to solicit arms and funding for the cash-strapped brothers. He was able
to travel to Rwanda, and there he met with Riboli, a citizen and resident of Rwanda,
who agreed to help the brothers by raising funds internationally, and to send them to the
Ratute brothers in order to aid them in their armed struggle against the Philippine
government. Before Ricalde and Riboli could complete their fund-raising activities for
the brothers, the AFP was able to reclaim the island and defeat the Ratute-led uprising.

Ricalde and Riboli were charged with conspiracy to commit treason. During the
hearing of the two cases, the government only presented as witness, General Riturban,
who testified on the activities of the Ratute brothers, Ricalde and Riboli.

(a) Can Ricalde and Riboli be convicted of the crime of conspiracy to commit
treason? (2.5%)

(b) Will the testimony of General Riturban, assuming he can testify on acts
within his personal knowledge, be sufficient to convict the Ratute brothers,
Ricalde and Riboli? (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(a) Ricalde and Riboli cannot be convicted of the crim of conspiracy to commit to
treason because the crime committed is the conspiracy to commit rebellion.
Treason and conspiracy to commit treason are war crimes (II L.B. Reyes) and
cannot be committed in times of peace. The war contemplated in treason and
 conspiracy to commit treason pertains to armed disputes between the Philippines
and a foreign state and not a mere civil war. The group of armed men are liable
for rebellion by rising publicly and taking up arms to remove a portion of the
territories of the Philippines. Agreeing and deciding to help the rebel raise funds
and sending money to them constitutes conspiracy to commit treason.

(b) General Riturban’s testimony is sufficient to convict them. The two-witness rule
under Art. 114(2) of the Revised Penal Code only applies to treason and not to
the crime of conspiracy to commit treason, moreso, to conspiracy to commit
rebellion.

XIV

Robin and Rowell are best friends and have been classmates since grade
school. When the boys graduated from high school, their parents gifted them with a trip
to Amsterdam, all expenses paid. At age 16, this was their first European trip. Thrilled
with a sense of freedom, they decided to try what Amsterdam was known for. One
night, they scampered out of their hotel room, went to the De Wallen, better known as
the Red-light District of Amsterdam. There, they went to a “coffee shop” which sells
only drinks and various items made from opium poppy, cannabis, and marijuana, all of
which are legal in Amsterdam. They represented themselves to be of age, and were
served, and took shots of, cannabis and marijuana products. They indulged in these
products the whole night, even if it was their first time to try them.

Before returning to Manila, they bought a dozen lollipops laced with cannabis, as
souvenir and “pasalubong” for their friends. They were accosted at the Manila
International Airport and were charged with importation of dangerous drugs under the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. They were also charged with use of
dangerous drugs after pictures of them in the “coffee shop” in Amsterdam were posted
on Facebook, showing them smoking and taking shots of a whole menu of cannabis
and marijuana products. Their own captions on their Facebook posts clearly admitted
that they were using the dangerous products. The pictures were posted by them
through Private Messenger (PM) only for their close friends, but Roccino, the older
brother of one of their best friends, was able to get hold of his younger brother’s
password, and without authority from his brother, accessed his PM and shared Robin
and Rowell’s Amsterdam photos on Facebook.

(a) Can Robin and Rowell be prosecuted for use of dangerous drugs for their
one-night use of these products in Amsterdam? (2.5%)

(b) Can they be prosecuted for importation of dangerous drugs? (2.5%)

(c) If found liable under either (a) or (b) above, what is the penalty that may
be imposed on them? (2.5%)
 (d) Can Roccino be prosecuted for the act of accessing and sharing on
Facebook the private pictures sent by PM to his brother? If yes, for what
crime? (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(a) No, Robin and Rowell cannot be prosecuted for use of dangerous drugs for their
one-night use of these products in Amsterdam. As a rule, Robin and Rowell
consumed the illegal substances outside Philippine Territory. Considering that
Robin and Rowell consumed the illegal substances outside Philippine territory,
i.e., in Amsterdam, they may not be prosecuted in the Philippines for violation of
the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act.

(b) Yes, Robin and Rowell may be prosecuted for importation of dangerous drugs
under Section 4 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended.
Under said law, cannabis is identified as a dangerous drug. Hence, Robin and
Rowell’s act of bringing into the Philippines lollipops laced with cannabis is in
direct violation of the prohibition against bringing into the Philippines any
dangerous drugs, including cannabis.

(c) No penalty may be imposed on them as they are minors over 15 years and under
18 years of age who acted with discernment as provided by Section 6 of R.A.
9344. The facts of the case show that they only brought the prohibited substance
as souvenir and “pasalubong” for their friends which shows their lack of
discernment.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

The penalty that may be imposed is reclusion perpetua. Article 68 (2) of the
Revised Penal Code states that the penalty next lower than that prescribed by
law shall be imposed upon a person over 15 years and under 18 years, but
always in the proper period. Robin and Rowell are minors who acted with
discernment, so as to fall under the scope of Section 98 of the Dangerous Drugs
Act, in relation to Article 68 (2) of the Revised Penal Code. Discernment is that
mental capacity of a minor to fully appreciate the consequences of his unlawful
act. The surrounding circumstances must demonstrate that the minor knew what
he was doing and that it was wrong (People v. Jacinto, G.R. No. 182239, 16
March 2011).In this case, Robin and Rowell: (a) misrepresented that they were of
age so that they may be able to consume cannabis and marijuana products; and
(b) deliberately shared photos of their experience with said products, indicate
their mental capacity to understand that said products are prohibited drugs as
defined under the Dangerous Drugs Act.
 (d) Roccino, who accessed the private messages of his brother and shared pictures
of other people in Facebook without their consent, can be charged with violation
of RA 10173 (Data Privacy Act of 2012) in relation to Chapter II, section 6 of RA
10175 (“Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012″ : All crimes defined and penalized
by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special laws, if committed by,
through and with the use of information and communications technologies.)
Roccino committed unauthorized access and disclosure of personal data
(Sections 29 and 32 of RA 10173).

XV

During the presentation of the prosecution’s evidence, Reichter was called to the
witness stand with the stated purpose that he would testify that his wife Rima had shot
him in the stomach with a .38 caliber pistol, resulting in near fatal injuries. Upon
objection of the defense on the ground of the marital disqualification rule, the presiding
judge (Judge Rossano) disallowed Reichter from testifying in the case. Its motion for
reconsideration having been denied, the People of the Philippines went up on certiorari
to the Court of Appeals (CA) questioning Judge Rossano’s ruling.

After due proceedings, the CA rendered judgment declaring Judge Rossano’s

As the CA decision became final and executory, the criminal case before the
RTC was calendared for trial. At the scheduled trial, the prosecution called Reichter to
the witness stand in order to testify on the same matter it earlier announced. The
defense objected on the ground that the CA erred in its disposition of the certiorari case.
Judge Rossano sustained the objection and again disallowed Reichter from testifying in
the criminal case. Repeated pleas from the prosecution for Judge Rossano to
reconsider his ruling and to allow Reichter to testify fell on deaf ears.

May Judge Rossano be convicted of a crime? If yes, what crime did he commit?
(5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Judge Rossano may be convicted of the crime of open disobedience under Article 231
of the Revised Penal Code.

In The Law Firm of Chavez Miranda and Aesoche v. Atty. Fria (G.R. No. 183014, 7
August 2013), the Supreme Court enumerated the following elements of the crime of
open disobedience: (a) that the offender is a judicial or executive officer; (b) that there is
a judgment, decision, or order of a superior authority made within the scope of its
jurisdiction and issued with all legal formalities; and (c)that the offender, without any
legal justification, openly refuses to execute the said judgment, decision, or order, which
he is duty bound to obey.

All the elements of the crime are present in this case, to wit: (a) Judge Rossano is a
judicial officer; (b) the Court of Appeals is a superior authority as against the Regional
Trial Court over which Judge Rossano presides; (c) the petition for certiorari filed with
the Court of Appeals and alleging grave abuse of discretion against Judge Rossano is
the remedy available to the prosecution, and which complied with the legal formalities;
(d) the Court of Appeals’ decision directing Judge Rossano to allow Reichter to testify in
the criminal case for the stated purpose was validly issued pursuant to said petition for
certiorari; and (e) Judge Rossano’s refusal to execute and comply with the Court of
Appeals decision, which he is duty bound to obey, has no legal justification. Judge
Rossano may therefore be held criminally liable for open disobedience.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

Judge Rossano may be charged and convicted of the crime of dereliction of duty under
Article 206 of the Revised Penal Code, which provides:
Article 206. Unjust interlocutory order. - Any judge who shall
knowingly render an unjust interlocutory order or decree shall
suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period and
suspension; but if he shall have acted by reason of inexcusable
negligence or ignorance and the interlocutory order or decree be
manifestly unjust, the penalty shall be suspension.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

Judge Rosario can be held liable for violation of Section 3 (e) of RA No. 3019 for giving
unwarranted preference, advantage or benefits to private party through manifest
partiality and evident bad faith. In People vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 177105-06, August 12,
2010, arrogant refusal to recognize and obey the CA decision causing undue injury to
the complainant and giving unwarranted benefits to private individuals constitutes
evident bad faith and manifest partiality contemplated in in violation of Section 3 (e) of
RA No. 3019.