Criminal Law Q & A
I.
Distinguish the following from each other:
a) complex crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code
b) special complex crime
c) Delito Continuado
ANSWER:
A) In a complex crime, the component crimes are defined and penalized
under separate and distinct Articles of the Revised Penal Code but are
allowed to be alleged in one Information as an exception to Section 13,
Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, because they are committed
under the circumstances provided in Article 48 of same code, i.e., two or
more grave or less grave felonies resulted from a single act, or one
offense was a necessary means for committing the other offense.
B) In a special complex crime, also known as composite crime, the
component crimes constitute a single indivisible offense and are thus
penalized as one crime under one article of RPC.
C) Delito continuado, also known as continued crime, is constituted by a
series of overt acts committed by the offender in one place a penal law,
and therefore regarded as impelled by a single, indivisible criminal
resolution, hence punished as one crime only.
Source: 2005 BAR
II.
Wenceslao and Loretta were staying in the same boarding house, occupying
different rooms. One late evening, when everyone in the house was asleep,
Wenceslao entered loretta’s room with the use of picklock., then, with force and
violence, Wenceslao ravished lORETTA. After he had satisfied his lust,
Wenceslao stabled Loretta to death and, before leaving the room, took her
jewelry.
Discuss the applicability of relevant aggravating circumstances of dwelling,
nocturnity and the use of picklock to enter the room of the victim.
ANSWER:
Dwelling is aggravating because the crimes were committed in the property of
Lorerra’s room which in law is considered as her dwelling. It is well settled that
“dwelling” includes a room in a boarding house being occupied by the offended
party where she enjoys privacy, peace of mind, and sanctity of an abode.
Nocturnity or nighttime is also aggravating because although it was not
purposely or especially sought for by Wenceslao, nighttime was obviously taken
advantaged of by him in committing the other crimes. Under the objective test,
nocturnity is aggravating when taken advantage of by the offender during the
commission of the crime thus facilitating the same. The use of a picklock to
enter the room of the victim is not aggravating circumstance under Article 14 of
the Code but punished as a crime by itself cause for possessing it. The use of
picklocks is equivalent to force upon things in robbery with force upon things.
Source: XVII, 2009 BAR
III.
Macky, a security guard, arrived late one night after rendering overtime. He was
shocked to see Joy, his wife and ken, his best friend, in the act of having sexual
intercourse. Macky pulled out his service gun and shot and killed ken.
The court found that ken died under exceptional circumstances and exonerated
Macky of murder but sentenced him to destierro, conformably with Article 247
of the Revised Penal Code. The court also ordered Macky to pay indemnity to
the heirs of the victim in the amount of P50,000.
While serving his sentence, macky entered the prohibited area and had a pot
session with ivy (joy’s sister). Is macky entitled to an indeterminate sentence in
case he is found guilty of the use of prohibited substances? Explain .
ANSWER:
NO. Macky is not entitled to the benefit of Indeterminate sentence law for
having evaded the sentence which banished or placed him on destierro.
Sec. 2 of the said law expressly provides that the law shall not apply to those
who shall have “evaded sentence”.
Alternative answer:
No, because penalty for the use of any dangerous drug by a first offender is not
imprisonment but rehabilitation in a government center for a minimum period
of six (6) months. The indeterminate sentence law does not apply when the
penalty is imprisonment not exceeding one year.
Source: IV B. 2007 BAR
IV.
Matt was found guilty of drug trafficking while his younger brother jeff was
found guilty of possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus, and other
paraphernalia for dangerous drugs under Section 12, Republic Act. No. 9165.
Matt filed a petition for probation. Jeff appealed his conviction during the
pendency of which he also filed a petition for probation.
The brothers’ counsel argued that they being first time offenders, their petitions
for probation should be granted, how would you resolve the brothers’ petitions
for probation? Explain.
ANSWER:
The brother’s petition for prohibition should both be denied.
Matt’s petition for probation shall be denied because he was convicted for drug
trafficking. Section 24 of the law provides any person convicted for drug
trafficking or pushing under this act, regardless of the penalty imposed by the
court, cannot avail of the privilege granted by the probation law or PD/ 968 as
amended.
Source: XX, 2010 BAR
V.
Following his arrest after a valid buy-bust operation, Tommy was convicted of
violation of section 5, RA 9165. On appeal, Tommy questioned the admissibility
of the evidence because the police officers who conducted the buy-bust
operation failed to observe the requisite “chain of custody” of the evidence
confiscated and/or seized from him.
What is the “chain of custody” requirement in drug offenses? What is its
rationale? What is the effect of failure to observe the requirement?
Answer:
“Chain of Custody” requirement in drug offense refers to the duly recorded,
authorized movement and custody of seized dangerous drugs, controlled
chemicals, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and laboratory equipment of
dangerous drugs from the time confiscation/seizure thereof from the offender,
ot its turn-over and receipt in the forensic laboratory for examination to its
safekeeping and eventual presentation/offer in court as evidence f the criminal
violation, and for destruction.
Its rationale is to preserve the authenticity of the corpus delicti or body of the
crime by rendering it improbable that the original item seized/confiscated in
violation has been exchanged or substituted with another or tampered with or
contaminated. It is a method of authenticating the evidence as would support a
finding beyond reasonable doubt that the matter is what the prosecution claims
to be.
Failure to observe the chain of custody requirement renders the evidence
questionable, not trustworthy and insufficient to prove the corpus delicti
beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, tommy would be acquitted on reasonable
doubt.
SOURCE: XIV, 2009 BAR
