1

1.) In Liang v. People, why was Jeffrey Liang who was charged of grave oral defamation, not covered by the immunity from legal process provided in Sec. 45 of the agreement between the Asian Development Bank and the Philippine Government? A. The act done by the accused was not part of his official duty B. The act done by the accused was part of his official duty C. Asian Development Bank waived his immunity D. None of the above ANSWER: A.

2.) In Schneckenburger v. Moran, Rodolfo Schneckenburger was a consul of Uruguay in the Philippines. Was his act of falsifying private documents under the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance in Manila? A. Yes, because a consul is not entitled to the privileges of ambassadors and ministers B. Yes, because he is subject to the laws and regulations of the Philippines C. All of the above D. None of the above ANSWER: C. 3.) Impossible crimes are not really crimes. This is not true in the Philippines. In Intod vs. CA, the Court stated that In our jurisdiction, impossible crimes are recognized. What is its extent? A. It is impliedly by our laws. B. The law is silent. C. Ambiguous. D. Expressly provided in the RPC ANSWER: D. 4.) In People v. Baldogo, what were the elements of uncontrollable fear that can exempt a person from criminal liability? A. It must be well-founded, and immediate, and actual damages of death or great bodily harm must be present and the compulsion must be of such character as to leave no opportunity to accused for escape or interpose self-defense. B. There is an unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel, and, the provocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making the defense had no part therein. C. Both A and B. D. None of the above. ANSWER: A.

5.) With the permission of the victim's parents, a faith healer performed a bizarre ritual of healing to drive away an "evil spirit" from the victim's body. Unfortunately, the strange procedure resulted in the death of the victim. Is the faith healer criminally liable? (People vs. Carmen) A. Yes, because his purpose of driving away an evil spirit from the victims body shows his intention of killing even the victim himself. B. Yes, liability arises from reckless imprudence because he lacks medical skills and he ought that to know his actions would not bring about the cure. C. No, liability only arises when the act is done with deliberate intent as mentioned in Article 3 of the Revised Penal Code. D. No, since the faith healer was merely performing a ritual prayer over the victim with no intention of causing harm to the him, besides the parents permitted the performance of such "healing". ANSWER: B. 6.) Read the four statements below carefully. I. Specific intent is used to describe a state of mind which exist where circumstances indicate that the offender actively desired a certain criminal consequences or objectively desired a specific result to follow his act or failure to act. II. Specific intent must not be alleged in the information and proved by the state in prosecution for a crime requiring specific intent. III. Motive is not an essential element of a crime and prosecution need not the same. IV. Motive establishes the innocence of accused for a crime charged such as murder. A. I and II are correct. B. II and III are correct. C. I and III are correct. D. I, II and III are correct. ANSWER: C 7.) In People vs. Ducay, the court held that it is a well-settled principle that when the trigger of the gun was pressed in several instances, such acts constitute separate and distinct crimes. Thus, when A pressed his gun in 3 several instances hitting and killing 3 persons, how many counts of murder does A constitute? A. 3 B. 6 C. 9 D. 12 ANSWER: A.

8.) CD Circular No. 960 requires a tourist upon arrival, to declare any foreign currency he is carrying if the same exceeds U$ 3,000.00. A who is a foreign National unintentionally failed to declare the currency upon his arrival amounting U$ 4,000.00. Therefore, should A be held liable for violation of CD Circular No. 960. a. No, because proof of malice or deliberate intent has not been established b. Yes, because the offense is mala prohibita under a special law c. Yes, because he is a foreign national d. No, because theres no proof that he carries a currency amounting U$ 4,000.00 ANSWER: B. 9.) Art. 100 of the Revised Penal Code states that every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. Art. 10 (RPC) provides that the Revised Penal Code may be applied supplementary to Special Laws. Thus, when A is criminally liable under a special law and such Special Law is silent to the civil liability of the one who violates the same, it can be presupposed that A is; a. also civilly liable b. only criminally liable c. civilly liable unless the special law provides d. not civilly liable for it is not stated in the special law ANSWER: A 10.) What are some instances when the supplementary function of the RPC to Special Laws cannot be invoked? a. When the special laws involved provide their own specific penalties for the offense punished thereunder. b. Where there is legal and physical impossibility of the effect c. When there is prohibition in the special law against such supplementary application. d. All mentioned above. ANSWER: D. 11.) Read the two statements below carefully. I. In determining the existence of conspiracy, it is not necessary to show that all the conspirators actually hit and killed the victim. II. In determining the existence of conspiracy, it is important that all participants performed specific acts with such closeness and coordination as to indicate a common purpose or design to bring about the death of the victim. a. Only I is correct b. Only II is correct c. I and II are correct d. I and II are wrong

ANSWER: C.

12.) What must an accused, interposing self-defense, prove to support his claim? (Unidad vs. CA) a. the victim unlawfully attacked him b. he took necessary means to repel the attack c. he did not provoke said attack d. all of the above ANSWER: D. 13.) In the case of Tabuena vs. Sandiganbayan, 268 SCRA 332, can mere apprehension of a "dangerous precedent" be enough grounds for conviction? a. Yes, because this is done in order to prevent an actual violation of constitutionally enshrined rights, even when the accused assails the obedience to a superior order. b. Yes, because "good faith" is not a valid defense in this case. c. No, because it is the greatest injustice to place judgment on someone who may be innocent. d. No, because they were simply following orders. ANSWER: C. 14.) In the case of People vs. Tulin, 364 SCRA 10, Hiong asserted that he was "merely following the orders of his superiors." His conviction has merit because: a. The orders of his superior were unlawful and it was deemed that he had knowledge thereof. b. The execution of orders by Hiong itself was unlawful, and therefore, he is guilty. c. Both a. and b. d. None of the above ANSWER: C.

15.) In the case of People vs. Genosa, 419 SCRA 537, why was the accused convicted when she was in fact suffering from Battered Woman Syndrome? a. The cycle of violence was not completed twice, which is the required number of times before declaring a woman a sufferer of Battered Woman Syndrome. b. There was no risk of probable grave harm to her at the time she shot her husband. c. There was no reasonable necessity of her means employed of shooting her husband since her husband was unarmed. d. Treachery was a main factor of her conviction. ANSWER: B.

16.) Read the two statements below carefully. (People vs. Bisda) I. Each conspirator is responsible for everything done by his confederates. II. The collective, concerted and synchronized acts of the appellants before, during and after the commission of a felony constitute concrete proof that the appellants conspired with each other to attain a common objective. A. I and II are correct. B. I and II are wrong C. I is correct D. II is correct ANSWER: A. 17.) The following are requisites of conspiracy, except: (People vs. Vicente) a. Agreement between two or more persons b. Agreement concerned the commission of a felony c. Companionship d. Decision to commit the felony ANSWER: C. 18.) Read the two statements below carefully. (People vs. Pabillare) I. The responsibility of a conspirator is not confined to the accomplishment of a particular purpose of conspiracy but extends to collateral acts and offenses incident to and growing out of the purpose intended. II. To hold an accused guilty as co-principal because of conspiracy, he must be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the complicity. a. b. c. d. I and II are correct I and II are wrong I is correct II is correct

ANSWER: A. 19.) Read the two statements below carefully. (People vs. Sanchez) I. Complex crime is only one crime. II. If the cause of death of two individuals is from only one act of the criminal, the latter should not be punished of complex crime. a. b. c. d. I and II are correct I and II are wrong I is correct II is correct

ANSWER: C.

20.) In the case of People vs. Abut, it was held that to hold one as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy that the accused must have performed an overt act in pursuance of the conspiracy although the acts performed might have been distinct and separate. This overt act consists of: a. Active participation in the actual commission of the crime itself b. Moral assistance to his co-conspirators by being present at the time of the commission of the crime c. Exerting a moral ascendance over the other co-conspirators by moving them to execute d. All of the mentioned ANSWER: D. 21.) In the case of People vs. Palagasan, it was held that two of the essential features of conspiracy are: a. Secrecy and isolation b. Concealment and privacy c. Secrecy and Concealment d. None of the mentioned ANSWER: C. 22.) Every law that makes an action, done before the passage of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal, and punishes such action.(U.S. vs. Diaz-Conde) A. Ex post facto law B. Bill of Attainder C. Ex post facto law or Bill of attainder D. None of the Above

ANSWER: A. 23.) The popular conception of this word is being used to describe a person or an act unnatural or out of the ordinary. (People Vs. Florendo) A. Crazy B. Insane C. Imbecile D. None of the Above ANSWER: A.

24.) In US vs. Ah Sing, the accused confessed that he owned the opium which was loaded in a foreign merchant vessel that was anchored in Subic Bay. He was then convicted of Illegal Possession of Opium. What was the specific basis of this conviction? A. Territoriality B. Dangerous Drugs Act C. Opium Law D. None of the Above ANSWER: C. 25.) In Maquibas vs. Commanding General, Maquibas was a civilian employee working for the US Army situated in the Philippines. He was charged of illegally disposing items belonging to the US Army to different parts of Manila. A. Philippines B. United States of America C. Both D. None of the Above ANSWER: A. 26.) In People vs Elijorde, Elijardo and Punzalan were found guilty by the RTC of Bulacan for conspiracy and eventually, the killing a certain Eric Hierro. Upon appeal, Punzalan contended that his only participation was kicking the victim twice before he was pursued and later stabbed by Elijarde. What could have been the Court's decision? A. Acquitted as a Conspirator but Guilty as an Accomplice. B. Acquitted as a Conspirator because there was no other evidence to show unity of purpose and design between him and Elijorde in the execution of the killing. C. Still guilty because his act of kicking the prior to the actual stabbing by Elijorde demonstrates their concurrence of wills or unity of purpose and action. D. None of the above ANSWER: A. 27.) Which among the statements below is NOT true about Conspiracy? (People vs Sanchez) A. It is not necessary to show that all the conspirators actually hit and killed the victim. B. It is not necessary that participants performed specific acts with such closeness and coordination as unmistakably to indicate a common purpose or design in bringing about the death of the victim. C. Conspiracy may render guilty people as co-principals regardless of the extent and character of their participation because in contemplation of law, the act of one conspirator is the act of all. D. None of the above. ANSWER: B.

28.) In People vs. De Vera, De Vera and two others were found guilty by the RTC of Quezon City for conspiracy and eventually, the killing of a certain Frederick Dizon. Upon appeal, the Court found that he knew of the others' intention to kill the victim and that he acted as a lookout as they went on to kill the victim. What could have been the Court's decision taking into consideration the said facts? While choosing your answer, remember that accomplices do not decide whether the crime should be committed; they merely assent to the plan and cooperate in its accomplishment. A. Acquitted as a Conspirator but Guilty as an Accomplice because he only knew of the decision to kill but did not actually participate. B. Acquitted as a Conspirator and also not an Accomplice because acting as a lookout does not necessarily mean he assented to the plan. C. Still Guilty as a Conspirator because if a person knows of the criminal intention, it undoubtedly follows that he also decided upon such course of action. D. None of the above. ANSWER: A. 29.) In the case of Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, how did the court classify Plunder? A. Malum in se because it is a heinous crime B. Malum in se because it can only be tried in a Special Court C. Malum prohibitum because it the mens rea is immaterial. D. Malum prohibitum because it can only be punished by a Special Law. ANSWER: A. 30.) This doctrine states that when a circumstance is susceptible to two interpretation, one being favorable to the accused and the other against him, the interpretation favourable to him shall prevail. A. Liberal Doctrine B. Void for Vagueness Doctrine C. Doctrine of Pro reo D. Equipoise Doctrine ANSWER: D.

31.) In the case of People v. Pugay, accused Samson knew very well that the liquid poured on the body of the deceased was gasoline and a flammable substance for he would not have committed the act of setting the latter on fire if it were otherwise. Giving him the benefit of doubt, it can be conceded that as part of their fun-making, he merely intended to set the victim's clothes on fire. Is the accused relieved from any criminal liability? A. No, criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. B. No, his act in setting the deceased on fire knowing that gasoline had just been poured on him is characterized by treachery as the victim was left completely helpless to defend and protect himself against such an outrage. C. Yes, there is entire absence of proof in the record that the accused Samson had some reason to kill the deceased before the incident. D. Yes, there is adequate evidence showing that his act was merely a part of their fun-making that evening. ANSWER: A. 32.) To be able to invoke Article 11 (5) of the Revised Penal Code as a justifying circumstance, what must be proven by the accused? A. That the offender acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office. B. That the injury or offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance of such duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office. C. Both A and B must be present. D. None of the above. ANSWER: C. 33.) In People vs. Sabalones, appellants conjured aberratio ictus as a defense characterized by aiming at one but hitting the other due to imprecision in the blow. The Court, however, better characterized the case and said that it was not aberration ictus. What is it? A. Mistake in the blow B. Praeter Intentionem C. Impossible Crime D. Mistake in the identity of the victim ANSWER: C.

10

34.) Pedophilia is a mental disorder which involves strong, recurrent and ____, sexual and physical fantasies of children. A. Contagious B. Relapsing C. Uncontrollable D. None of the above ANSWER: C. 35.) Insanity of the accused may have the following effects except: A. Exempting at the time of the commission of the crime B. Immediate rehabilitation during the trial C. Suspension of proceedings of trial D. Suspension of judgment ANSWER: B. 36.) In instigation, the mens rea originates from the mind of the criminal. (Araneta vs. CA.) A. Yes, all the time. B. Yes, partially. C. No. D. None of the above. ANSWER: C. 37.) In order to justify unlawful aggression, what circumstances or elements must be present? A. That an offensive act that positively determines the intent of the aggressor to cause an injury shall have been made. B. That there was an intimidating attitude C. That an attack or material aggression to cause injury shall have been made. D. Both A and C. ANSWER: C 38.) Reasonable necessity of the means employed will depend on the following circumstances except: A. The nature and the quality of the weapons B. The mental condition of the accused C. The character and size of protagonists D. Time and place of the attack ANSWER: B.

11

39.) A civil case can proceed independently from the criminal action against a person who is accused of homicide through reckless imprudence, True or False? (Madeja vs. Carjo) A. False, Criminal and civil actions arising from the same offense may be instituted separately but after the criminal action has been commenced, the civil action cannot be instituted until final judgment has been rendered in the criminal action. B. True, an independent civil action entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action may be brought by the injured party during the pendency of the criminal cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries, a civil action for damages. C. False, no civil action arising from the same offence may be prosecuted. D. True, since criminal liability is different form civil liability. ANSWER: B 40.) As a general rule, motive is not essential in order to arrive at a conviction because, after all, motive is a state of mind. In the case of People vs. Hassan, however, the Court held that the lack of motive on the part of the accused may play a pivotal role towards his acquittal if: A. He is a minor. B. He provides sufficient evidence supporting his lack of motive to commit the crime. C. There is doubt as to the identity of the culprit as when the identification is extremely tenuous. D. He was not granted the concern and compassion with which the poor, marginalized, and disadvantaged so critically deserve. ANSWER: C. 41.) In People vs. Oyanib, accused Oyanib caught his wife and another man having sexual intercourse at the place where his wife was staying which caused him to kill the two. Prior to this incident, Oyanib and his wife were already living separately. On what grounds can Oyanibs acquittal can be based upon? A. Art. 11 (1), RPC B. Art. 11 (5), RPC C. Art. 247, RPC D. Art. 332, RPC ANSWER: C. 42.) Who is in charge of decision connected with acts which should be repressed but not covered by the law? A. President B. Senate C. Judicial Officers D. House of Representatives ANSWER: C.

12

43.) Insanity can be invoked to exempt from criminal liability for any unlawful act. All of the following are requisites for invoking insanity except: A. Deprivation of intelligence B. Freedom of will C. Deprivation of reason D. Action without the least discernment ANSWER: B 44.) In invoking self-defense, the accused must prove the lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. The following are requisites of this element except? A. There is no provocation from the accused. B. Even if there was provocation from the accused, it was reasonable. C. Even if there was provocation from the accused, it was not sufficient. D. Even if provocation is sufficient, it must not come from the accused. ANSWER: B. 45.) RA 9262 referred to the Battered Woman Syndrome as a scientifically defined pattern of psychological and behavioural symptoms found in women living in battering relationships as a result of __________ abuse. A. Acute battering B. Unforeseeable C. Cumulative D. None of the above ANSWER: C