Está en la página 1de 3

GENERAL PRINCIPLES

General Principles; Schools of thought in Criminal Law (1996)


1} what are the different schools of thought or theories in Criminal Law and
describe each briefly. 2) To what theory does our Revised Penal Code belong?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: 1 There are two schools of thought in Criminal Law,
and these are (a) the CLASSICAL THEORY, which simply means that the basis of
criminal liabilities is human free will, and the purpose of the penalty is retribution
which must be proportional to the gravity of the offense; and (b) the POSITIVIST
THEORY, which considers man as a social being and his acts are attributable not just
to his will but to other forces of society. As such, punishment is not the solution, as
he is not entirely to be blamed; law and jurisprudence should not be the yardstick in
the imposition of sanction, instead the underlying reasons would be inquired
into.2We follow the classical school of thought although some provisions of
eminently positivist in tendencies, like punishment of impossible crime, Juvenile
circumstances, are incorporated in our Code.
General Principles; Territoriality (1994) Abe, married to Liza, contracted
another marriage with Connie in Singapore. Thereafter, Abe and Connie returned to
the Philippines and lived as husband and wife in the hometown of Abe in Calamba,
Laguna. 1) Can Abe be prosecuted for bigamy? SUGGESTED ANSWER:1) No, Abe
may not be prosecuted for bigamy since the bigamous marriage was contracted or
solemnized in Singapore, hence such violation is not one of those where the Revised
Penal Code, under Art. 2 thereof, may be applied extraterritorially. The general rule
on territoriality of criminal law governs the situation. General Principles;
Territoriality; Jurisdiction over Vessel (2000)After drinking one (1) case of San Miguel
beer and taking two plates of "pulutan",Binoy, a Filipino seaman, stabbed to death
Sio My, a Singaporean seaman, aboard M/V "Princess of the Pacific", an overseas
vessel which was sailing in the South China Sea. The vessel, although Panamanian
registered, is owned by Lucio Sy, arich Filipino businessman. When M/V "Princess of
the Pacific" reached a Philippine Port at Cebu City, the Captain of the vessel turned
over the assailant Binoy to the Philippine authorities. An information for homicide
was filed against Binoy in the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City. He moved to quash
the information for lackof jurisdiction. If you were the Judge, will you grant the
motion? Why? (5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: 10 of 86 Yes, the Motion to Quash the
Information should be granted. The Philippine court has no jurisdiction over the
crime committed since it was committed on the high seas or outside of Philippine
territory and on board a vessel not registered or licensed in the Philippines (US vs.
Fowler, 1 Phil 614) It is the registration of the vessel in accordance with the laws of
the Philippines, not the citizenship of her owner, which makes it a Philippine ship.
The vessel being registered in Panama, the laws of Panama govern while it is in the
high seas.

Use of Aliases; When Allowed (2006) When can a Filipino citizen residing in this
country use an alias legally? Give 3 instances. (2.5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: 1.
Pseudonym for literary purposes. 2. Use of aliases in cinema and television
entertainment. 3. In athletics and sports activities (RA. 6085). 4. Under the witness
protection program a person may adopt a different identity(RA. 6981). 5.
When he has been baptized or customarily known by such alias.6When authorized
by a competent court (CA. No. 142, as amended by RA. 6085). 7. When properly
indicated in a Certificate of Candidacy (Omnibus Election Code).
FELONIES Conspiracy (1997) A had a grudge against F. Deciding to kill F, A and
his friends, B, C, and D, armed themselves with knives and proceeded to the house
of F, taking a taxicab for the purpose. About 20 meters from their destination, the
group alighted and after instructing E, the driver, to wait, traveled on foot to the
house of F. B positioned himself at a distance as the group's lookout. C and D stood
guard outside the house. Before A could enter the house, D left the scene without
the knowledge of the others. A stealthily entered the house and stabbed F. F ran to
the street but was blocked by C, forcing him to flee towards another direction.
Immediately after A had stabbed F, A also stabbed G who was visiting F. Thereafter,
A exiled from the house and, together with B and C, returned to the waiting taxicab
and motored away. G died. F survived. Who are liable for the death of G and the
physical injuries of F? SUGGESTED ANSWER: A alone should be held liable for the
death of G. The object of the conspiracy of A. B, C, and D was to kill F only. Since B,
C, and D did not know of the stabbing of G by A, they cannot be held criminally
therefor. E, the driver, cannot be also held liable for the death of G since the former
was completely unaware of said killing. Criminal Law Bar Examination Q & A (19942006) For the physical injuries of F, A, B and C. should be held liable therefore. Even
if it was only A who actually stabbed and caused physical injuries to G, B and Care
nonetheless liable for conspiring with A and for contributing positive acts which led
to the realization of a common criminal intent. B positioned himself as a lookout,
while C blocked F's escape. D, however, although part of the conspiracy, cannot be
held liable because he left the scene before A could enter the house where the
stabbing occurred. Although he was earlier part of the conspiracy, he did not
personally participate in the execution of the crime by acts which directly tended
toward the same end (People vs. Tomoro, et al 44 Phil.38), In the same breath, E,
the driver, cannot be also held liable for the infliction of physical injuries upon F
because there is no showing that he had knowledge of the plan to kill F.
Conspiracy; Avoidance of Greater Evil (2004) BB and CC, both armed with knives,
attacked FT. The victim's son, ST, upon seeing the attack, drew his gun but was
prevented from shooting the attackers by AA, who grappled with him for possession
of the gun. FT died from knife wounds. AA, BB and CC were charged with murder. In
his defense, AA invoked the justifying circumstance of avoidance of greater evil or
injury, contending that by preventing ST from shooting BB and CC, he merely
avoided a greater evil. Will AA's defense prosper? Reason briefly. (5%) SUGGESTED

ANSWER: No, AA's defense will not prosper because obviously there was a
conspiracy among BB, CC and AA, such that the principle that when there is a
conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all, shall govern. The act of ST, the victim's
son, appears to be a legitimate defense of relatives; hence, justified as a defense of
his father against the unlawful aggression by BB and CC. ST's act to defend his
father's life, cannot be regarded as an evil inasmuch as it is, in the eyes of the law,
a lawful act. What AA did was to stop a lawful defense, not greater evil, to allow BB
and CC achieve their criminal objective of stabbing FT.