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. 5 points)

SUGGESTED ANSWER

Performance of duty is not unlawful aggression. See: Criminal Law

Reviewer, Vol. 1, 2022 Edition by Judge Marlo Campanilla)

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 the inquest, the
prosecutor charged Buboy with three counts of Homicide.

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

briefly. 5 points)

SUGGESTED ANSWER

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. 5 points)

SUGGESTED ANSWER

Requisites of an accident: lawful act, without dolo, without culpa.

Arresting for traffic violations 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

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, 20207. 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)

SUGGESTED ANSWER
One piece of information for murder with the special aggravating
circumstance of using a loose firearm Section 29 of RA No. 10591
should have been filed and not two information.

See: Criminal Law Reviewer, Vol. 2,

2022 Edition by Judge Marlo Campanilla)

Note: The 20212022 Bar Exam Syllabus included RA No. 10591 on

illegal possession of loose firearm. However, the 2022 Bar Exam
Syllabus excludes RA No. 10591

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)
SUGGESTED ANSWER

Impossible crime of theft Jacinto v. People, G.R. No. 162540, July

13, 2009; See: Criminal Law Reviewer, Vol 1, 2022 Edition by Judge
Marlo Campanilla; saying nasa old free material ko ito.
In 7 days of lecture and 2 days of forecast lecture, I explained the
Jacinto principle.
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)

SUGGESTED ANSWER
Statutory rape and child prostitution. Section 5, if the child exploited
in prostitution is under 16 years of age, he shall be prosecuted for
rape under RPC.

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:
Having sexual intercourse with the offended party, who is under 16
years of age, is statutory rape. If the child is under 16 years old, and
the act of the offender constitutes rape and sexual abuse, the
accused shall be prosecuted for graver crime of statutory rape under
the Revised Penal Code. Under Section 5 (b) of RA No. 7610 as
amended by RA No. 11648, when the child subjected to sexual abuse
is under 16 years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted for
rape.

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)
SUGGESTED 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)

SUGGESTED 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. 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)

SUGGESTED 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)
SUGGESTED 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)
SUGGESTED 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 Ranger

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)

SUGGESTED 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,
orgross 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,
June08, 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.