Ray Joseph L.
Yap EH302MC
1. Bayotas was convicted of Rape and sentenced to imprisonment of Reclusion Perpetua
and civil liability of 100,000.00 PHP. Bayotas filed a notice of appeal. Pending the appeal,
Bayotas died. What is the effect of the death of Bayotas on his criminal and civil
liabilities?
Answer:
In PP vs Bayotas, the Supreme Court held that the death of the accused pending
appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil liability
solely thereon. Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death
of accused, if the same may also be predicated as source of obligation other than delict.
In this case, Bayotas died while an appeal is being pending. Based on
jurisprudence, Bayotas criminal liability of rape as well as his civil liability directly arising
from and based solely on the offense committed is deemed extinguished the moment
he died. However, his other liabilities other than mentioned above will still proceed.
2. Rex was convicted of Homicide. What is the evidence required for the court to award
the following damages:
a) Civil indemnity ex delicto;
b) Moral damages;
c) Actual damages;
d) Exemplary damages.
If the actual damage is less than 25,000.00 PHP what is the consequence?
Answer:
In PP vs. Jadap, the Supreme Court held that damages are awarded when death
occurs due to a crime. Where (a) civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs
of the victim without need of proof other that the commission of the crime. In cases of
murder and homicide, (b) moral damages may be awarded without need of allegation
and proof of the emotional suffering of the heirs other than the death of the victim,
since vicious killing of the victim cannot be denied. (c) Actual damages is also awarded
based on the receipts presented by the heirs of the deceased for the expenses incurred
for the death of the victim. And lastly (d) Exemplary damages according to the law, may
be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating
circumstances.
In People v. Villanueva, the Supreme Court held that when actual damages
proven by receipts during the trial amount to less than 25,000.00 PHP, the award of
temperate damages for 25,000.00 PHP is justified in lieu of actual damages for a lesser
amount.
3. Police implemented a search warrant on the house of Brody searching for drugs. They
took custody several pounds of “shabu”, weighing scales, and a car. Brody was charged
in court for violating the Dangerous Drugs Act. During the trial it was established that
the car belonged to Brody’s mother who was not included in the charges. A motion was
filed for the release of the car. If you were the judge how would you resolve the motion
to release the car?
Answer:
If I were the judge, I would release the property that was being seized to the
person who is entitled to its possession if the property involved has no criminal
prosecution and will not give an unreasonable delay in prosecution, upon the
termination of case.
In PDEA vs. Brodett, the Supreme Court held that the Revised Penal Code bars
the confiscation and forfeiture of an instrument or tool used in the commission of the
crime if such “be the property of a third person not liable for the offense.”
In this case, the car was owned by the mother of the accused which is clearly not
liable for the offense committed by her son and therefore the car is considered as
owned by a third person, which is the mother of Brody.
Therefore, her property should be returned to her if no criminal prosecution is
found and will not give unreasonable delay in prosecution upon the termination of the
case.
4. Allan was the barangay treasurer. One day he took barangay funds and used it to buy
personal items. After a week an audit was conducted. This forced Allan to falsify several
government vouchers to try and conceal the missing funds. He was charged with two
crimes Malversation for using barangay funds and Falsification for falsifying government
vouchers. Allan claims that if liable he should be liable for a complex crime:
Malversation through Falsification of Public Documents. Which party is correct?
Answer:
Allan is correct.
In committing a complex crime, there are three requisites. First is it must at least
have two offenses, second is the one or some must be a necessary means to commit the
other and lastly is that both offense must be punished under the same statute.
In the case of People vs. Barbas, the Supreme Court held that when the offender
commits falsification of public, official or commercial document as a necessary means to
commit malversation, the crime committed is complex crime proper under Article 48 of
RPC.
Here, the accused committed two separate crimes, falsification of public
documents and malversation which satisfies the first requisite and according to
jurisprudence, falsification of public document is one of necessary means to commit
malversation which satisfies the second requisite. Lastly, falsification of public
documents and malversation is punishable by the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines
which satisfies the last requisite.
Therefore, according to the jurisprudence and satisfying all the requisites of a
complex crime, Allan is only liable for a complex crime: Malversation through
Falsification of Public Documents.
5. Gerry was a policeman. One day he approached Dennis who was standing in a corner.
Gerry was not in uniform. He asked Dennis if he had any drugs to sell. Dennis
immediately reached into his pocket and came up with several small sachets of shabu.
After Gerry gave Dennis the money and the shabu exchanged hands, Gerry announced
that he was a policeman and arrested Dennis for selling drugs. Dennis claims instigation.
Is Dennis correct?
Answer:
No, Dennis is not correct.
In People v. Valencia, Instigation or inducement is defined as wherein the police
or its agent lures the accused into committing the offense in order to prosecute him. In
instigation, it is necessary that the instigator is a public officer or one who is performing
public functions, or it is the law enforcer who conceives the commission of the crime
and suggests to the accused.
In this case, Gerry, a policeman, only approached and asked Dennis if he had any
drugs to sell where Dennis “immediately” reached into his pocket and came up with
several sachets of shabu and made an exchange with Dennis. Here, Gerry did not
commit anything to force or lure the accused into performing such act of selling shabu
and therefore, no instigation present in this case.
Therefore, Dennis is incorrect.
