Crim Law Final Exam

1.
Joan, who is the mother-in-law of Letty, unknowingly left her handbag, containing
among other things, her ATM card, when she visited Letty at her house. After having
discovered the same, Letty took said card and with it, was able to withdraw, through an
ATM, P30,000.00 from Joan’s account with the issuing bank. Is Letty criminally liable
therefor? What is the liability, if any?
Answer: Letty is not criminally liable but she is civilly liable. Under the Revised Penal
Code, it is provided that no criminal, but only civil liability, shall result from the
commission of theft committed or caused mutually by ascendants or relatives by affinity
in the same line.
In this case, Letty committed the crime of theft against her mother-in-law, Joan, her
relative by affinity in the same line as an ascendant. Hence Letty is exempt from
criminal liability therefor.
Under the said law, while Letty is not criminal liable for theft, she is however civilly liable
to Joan for the amount of money that she had stolen from her.
2. Zeus has been employed as messenger of HIRAM, an entity engaged in the delivery
of remittances from abroad to its clients. One day, Zeus was tasked by REMIT to deliver
cash money in the amount of P50,000.00 to Lexee. Instead of transmitting the money to
the recipient, Zeus used the same to redeem a set of jewelry which he pawned to
Aldrew. What is/are the crime/s committed, if any?
Answer: THEFT
The Supreme Court has held that a person who converts or takes personal property
belonging to another over which the accused has merely physical not juridical
possession is not liable for estafa but for theft. Here Pedro only had physical not
juridical possession of the cash as it was turned over to him by the employer for delivery
to another person. Thus Pedro only had physical not juridical possession since he had
no right to the cash as against the employer REMIT. Hence Pedro is liable for theft not
estafa.
3. When Balong and Bong went to the house of Cring, an 85 years old widow, for the
purpose of abducting her, they found her lifeless lying on a couch. Balong and Bong
nevertheless carried her corpse and brought it to a safe house.
Later on, Balong sent a text message to Cring’s rich daughter, Llana, and from whom
he demanded ransom supposedly in exchange for her release from captivity. Believing
that her mother was still alive and fearing that Balong and Bong would kill Cring, Llana,
as instructed by Balong, deposited Ten Million to the latter’s bank account. What
crime(s) may Balong and Bong be aptly charged of?
Answer: Peter and John may aptly be charged of grave threats.
Under the Revised Penal Code, one of the modes by which grave threats is committed
is when the offender threatens another of the infliction of any wrong amounting to a
crime, upon the person of the offended party or that of his family, coupled with a
demand for money and that the offender attains his purpose. Here Peter and John
threatened the infliction of a crime, that is murder, upon Maria’s mother whom she
believed to be still alive, they made a demand for money upon Maria, and they attained
their purpose when Maria gave them ₱5 million. Hence Peter and John may be aptly
charged with grave threats.
4. Blue and Cutie got married in 2010. In 2012, Blue filed with the court an action for the
declaration of nullity of his marriage with Cutie on the ground of absence of a marriage
license (a nullity case).
In 2014, during the pendency of the nullity case, Blue contracted a second marriage
with Ivana. When Cutie found out about the second marriage of Blue and Ivana, she
filed a criminal case for bigamy before the courts.
During the pendency of the criminal case for bigamy, a judgment was rendered in the
nullity case granting Blue’s action for declaration of nullity of his marriage with Cutie.
The judgment became final and executory.
May Blue be later convicted of bigamy in the criminal case?
Answer: Yes, Donald may later be convicted of bigamy in the criminal case even if a
judgment was rendered in the nullity case granting Donald’s action for declaration of
nullity of his marriage with Olga. In a case involving similar facts, the Supreme Court
held that the crime of bigamy is consummated from the time the accused contracts a
second marriage before the judicial declaration of nullity of his prior marriage,
regardless of the fact that the first marriage was eventually declared void. [Pimentel v.
Pimentel, 13 September 2010]
1.

Crim Law Final Exam

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Crim Law Final Exam

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Crim Law Final Exam

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1.

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.