Criminal Law Reyes

April 25, 2018 | Author: Helena Herrera | Category: Treason, Theft, Crime & Justice, Crimes, Prison
Share Embed Donate

Short Description

For law students and bar reviewees...


The evidence of the prosecution for A’s A’s treason was that A wanted to aid the Japanese army by buying trucks and other means of transportation to be delivered to them, as he wanted them to win the war. Several witnesses witnesses testified to these facts. Can the Court convict A of treason No. There was no levying of war. More to the point, there was only mere adherence to the enemy. Adherence Adherence must be coupled by giving aid or comfort (a positive act) In this case, there was no evidence that A bought the trucs and delivered them to the !aps. Intention alone is insufficient. A foreign country wanted to invade the !". A group of #ilipinos were sending money to that foreign country to help the invasion. $s there treason No, there"s none. There"s no war. $f #ilipinos actually assembled and gathered together to overthrow the government to pave the way for the foreign country’s invasion, is there treason No. The #ilipinos wont be liable for treason. The levying of war must also tae place in the time of war. %uring the Japanese occupation, A, a #ilipino, was always entertaining Japs in his h ouse and was g iving hem parties. A, however, managed to avoid talking to them or anyone else about war and the countries at war. &as there treason No. That a #ilipino is friendly or sympathetic is not necessarily an act of treason. To be treasonous, the e$tend of aid and comfort given to the enemies must be to render assistance to them as enemies and not merely as individuals. $f during the war, a citi'en made speeches critical to his own government, opposed its measures, or engaged in profiteering, thereby diminishing the strength of his own country, is he liable for treason No. Aid or comfort w%o adherence is not treason. If there is no adherence to the enemy, if there is no intent to betray, then there"s no treason. (uslim e)teremists in (indanao declared &ar against the !" government. A, who adhered to the cause of the (uslims, furnished them weapons. $s A liable for treason No. A is not liable for treason. Art &&' contemplates contemplates a breach of allegiance to a foreign power. ince #ilipinos declared the war against its own government, A cannot be held liable for treason. A, a private individual and a #ilipino, knowing that * was in conspiracy with others to commit treason against the !", harbored, concealed and later assisted in *’s escape. $s A criminally liable liable es, es, under Art. &&*, for misprision of treason, for not reporting the conspiracy to the authorities as soon as possible. The municipal treasurer of a town saw his servant +uarreling with his wife. "e then sei'ed his servant and detained him in the municipal ail. $s he guilty of arbitrary detention or illegal detention +e is guilty of unlawful arrest (Art *-). hen the purpose of arresting a person without authority of law or reasonable ground therefore is to deliver the p erson arrested to the proper authority, lie the /ailer, it is unlawful arrest. +e can"t be guilty of A0 because he is not a public officer who has /urisdiction to arrest or order the arrest of persons. +e can"t be guilty of I0 because of the purpose of the detention. $s the liability for A% limited only to those !os or employees who actually detained a person w-o legal ground No. because a /udge, or the fiscal, before whom an arrested person is brought for investigation, may order the detention of that person without verifying the truth of the charge. In such a case, such 12, even though he does not actually detain, becomes a principal by induction in the crime of A0. &hat is the crime of a private individual who induced a policeman to detain a person w-o legal ground and the policeman actually did so +e is liable for A0, as principal by induction. &hat is the liability of a private individual who detained another for a legal ground and failed to deliver the person detained to the proper udicial authority within the time specified under Art. /0 +e would be guilty of illegal detention. A policeman, without reasonable ground and on mere suspicion that * committed theft, arrested the latter and locked him up in ail. 0 hours later, he delivered * to the udge by filing a complaint for theft. The prosecutor dismissed the complaint. $s the policeman liable for A%


es, because he arrested and detained 3 without legal ground. It was made o n mere suspicion. A policeman became angry at the owner of a house. Thus, he entered the house against the will of the owner and beat him up inside the house. $s the policeman liable for violation of domicile No because the policeman was not acting in his official capacity. 2nly serious physical in/uries with A4 of dwelling. It"s not trespass to dwelling because when trespass is used as a direct means to commit the crime, it is absorbed in the other crime. Can participants in a meeting be held liable under Art. 1 No. If the 12 are participants in a meeting which was interrupted by reason of the disturbance they created, they are not liable under Art. &5&. &hat crime is committed by a !2$3AT4 individual who prevented or disturbed a religious ceremony or manifestation of any religion If there is only a disturbance, its disturbance of public order under Art. &65. If they prevented it with violence%intimidation, it is grave coercion $n a baptismal party where all the guests were Catholics, 5 slapped a priest and gravely slandered him. $s 5 liable for offending religious feelings No. The acts were not performed in a place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of any religious ceremony. It was only a baptismal party A group of persons rose publicly and took arms against the 6overnment, resulting to the deaths of policeman. Are they liable for rebellion No. because the purpose of the uprising was not shown. +omicide%murder only. (ust the purpose in rebellion be accomplished No need. It is sufficient that the purpose e$ists. 5, a the town treasurer, gave to the rebels who were taking arms to overthrow the government the funds in his custody. &hat is his liability 2nly rebellion. 7ebellion absorbed the crime of malversation. A, with other "uks 7rebels8, asked for food from the barrio residents. They warned them not to tell authorities of their purpose. * and C told the soldiers of their presence. $n response, the soldiers ambushed the "uks. A, in retaliation, killed * and C and stole their belongings. &hat is the liability of A 7ebellion only. The illing was in furtherance of rebellion. •

A, the mayor of a town, and *, a private citi'en, were talking in front of a municipal bldg. $n the course of their conversation about politics, * and the mayor became engaged in an altercation, resulting in * punching A on the lips. $s * liable for direct assault8 No. This is because the mayor was not in the performance of an official duty and it was the result of a 9uarrel of a private nature not involving the official duty of the mayor. The crime committed was only physical in/uries.

The %ivision Superintendent of schools was asked by the !rovincial 6overnor to appoint certain applicants for the position of teachers. The S$ refused to do so because the applicants were ineligible. The agent of the governor then saw the Superintendent on the railroad. The agent then punched the S$ on the face. $s the agent liable for direct assault es. This is because it is not necessary to commit the crime of direct assault that the offender was  personally affected by the performance of the official duty of the 1A%A1A. In this case, the agent punched the I because the latter did not want to appoint the persons the :overnor recommended. It involved the performance of the official duty of the I, a person in authority.

A found out that their mayor was having se) with his wife. A got his gun and went to the city hall. As soon as A saw the mayor, he shot him but failed to him. $s A guilty of direct assault with attempted homicide In this case, motive is immaterial. A is liable for direct assault.

A, a town councilor, found out that soldiers arrested his political leaders and followers for illegal gambling. Thus, he asked the soldiers to release them. &hen the sergeant refused, the councilor hit him several times with a cane, causing serious physical inuries. $s the councilor guilty of %A es, because the sergeant was attaced while in the performance of official duties and by reason of the performance of his official duties. The e$ercise of authority was not being contended as it was not the councilor"s official duty to intervene in a case where the soldier lawfully arrested lawbreaers. Two persons, who hated the councilor of their town, burned the latter’s house. $s there sedition No, because they did not rise publicly and tumultuously. At least ' armed persons are re9uired for it to be tumultuous. A wanted to eliminate his political rival * b efore the election. A enlisted the help of rebels 7"uks8 to attack the barrio where * was living, with the particular purpose of killing *. %uring the attack made by the rebels in which A also took part, * was inured and his house was burned. Considering that the "uks were engaged in rebellion and A was in conspiracy with the "uks, is A guilty of rebellion No. A committed sedition. The purpose of the public and tumultuous uprising was not for the purposes of rebellion, but merely to attain by force or other unlawful means an ob/ect ; commit for any political end an act of hate against a private person. hile it is true that the +us were engaged i n rebellion and A was in conspiracy with them,

0angerous Tendency in relation to inciting to sedition vs. clear and present danger  > and signed the signature of the owner of the checkbook. "e then used the check to buy C’s car. The check bounced. * was preudiced. &hat the hell happened  A is guilty for estafa through falsification of a commercial document. There was estafa because A falsely pretended to possess property (money in the form of a chec) +e can also be guilty of 31 . A had se) with *, a woman, for !"p0>>. $t was *’s first time to have se). $s she a p rostitute No. +aving se$ for money must be habitual. (ay a woman who is physically a virgin be prostitute es, if she for money or profit, habitually indulges in lascivious conduct only. A told the municipal treasurer of a town that he would kill * on the evening of that day. The treasurer didn’t do anything. A killed *. $s the treasurer liable


No. The duty must be i n dereliction of the duties of his office. It"s not his duty to prosecute offenses.

The udge rendered a decision in favor of A. $n response, A gave the udge a car. The decision was legal and when it was appealed, the decision was affirmed. &hat is their liability The /udge is liable for indirect bribery. The car was given by reason of the office of the /udge. It i s in effect a reward for having performed a duty. It will therefore e$pose the /udge to future corruption. A is liable for corruption of public officer. "ow to hold giftgiver liable for corruption of !; In order that the giftHgiver may be held liable for corruption of 12, the 12 must have committed bribery, 0 or I0. A, wife hired * a stranger, to kill her husband with a pistol furnished by C . * shot the husband. &hen C gave the pistol to *, he knew that A induced * to kill the husband. &hat crime was committed 3 committed murder because he illed the husband for a price, consideration or promise. 4 is an accomplice in the crime of murder for furnishing the gun. The wife, A, is liable for parricide. This is because >aggravating circumstances w%c arise from private relation of the offender and the offended party and which 9ualify the crime shall aggravate the liability of, or 9ualify the crime as against the principals, accomplices, and accessories to whom they are attendant. •

A woman lived with / different men, A and * for  month until A gave up. "e left. A child was born to the woman ? months later. &hen the child was  week old, * killed him. $s this parricide No. This is because the p aternity of the child is not certain. 7elationship is essential in parricide. Thus, 3 committed murder (9ualified because illing of & wee old id is treachery)

A allows his = year old daughter to hang out with her boyfriend alone. "e doesn’t mind if he catches them kissing in the dark. ;ne day, A surprised them in a hotel having se). A killed the boyfriend. :iable under /9= No. +e might have promoted se$ual intercourse, but not the prostitution of the daughter. A and * are commonlaw partners 7live in8. A shot * in the abdomen. * died. &hat crime was committed by A Murder, because he too advantage of his superior strength. A asked * to drink with him knowing that he had a weak resistance to alcohol. &hen * was already drunk, A stabbed him. (urder es. Means employed to weaen defense. It 9ualified the crime to murder 

A told * to kill C. * then killed C. A then g ave * !"!>>>. (urder No. +omicide only. There was no indication that the illing was done in consideration of the 1+1&CCC.

A and * had a +uarrel. A challenged * to a fight saying B:et’s see who is the better man * refused to accept. C made fun of * for refusing to accept. Are A and C liable under /D> No. there was no challenge to a duel. The act of A in challenging 3 to a fight is not a challenge to a duel because it laced the formality that the challenge of a duel re9uires. 4 also not liable because the criminal liability for scoffing at another for decrying a duel presupposes the e$istence of a valid challenge to a duel. A and * were fighting. $n the course of the fight, A sliced off *’s hand. $s it mutilation No. There was no intent or purpose to deprive 3 of his hand. Art * does not only loo at the result but also at the intention.

A doctor removed the ovary of a woman so that she won’t get pregnant again. (utilation es, because the purpose of removing the ovary was to deprive her of an essential organ for reproduction. A, who had killed his wife, went to this adopted brother and asked the latter to hide him in his house. The adopted brother harbored and concealed A because he was given a diamond ring by A. is the adopted brother criminally liable


No, because the diamond ring which he received from A was not an effect of the crime of parricide. Gven if he profited, the adopted brother did not profit by the effect of the crime.

 A, purchasing agent of a private company, bought for the company office supplies worth 1+16,CCC and paid it out of the 1+1*,CCC he had received from the treasurer, but in the receipt i ssued by the store from which the office supplies were purchased, A erased the figure >6? and changed it to *? and made other alterations on it to mae it appear on the receipt that the price of the office supplies was 1+1*,CCC. hat crime did A commit8 2nly one simple crime of estafa with abuse of confidence was committed by A. It cannot be a comple$ crime of estafa through falsification because the document that was falsified was not a necessary means for committing estafa. Moreover, it was not necessary for him to falsify the document to get the difference of 1+1&,CCC. +e already had the 1+1&,CCC. Most importantly, estafa through falsification of a private document is not legally possible 3G4A>> was lawfully disbursed, is the treasurer liable for a comple) crime No. +e is liable for  separate crimes. +e committed malversation for misappropriating the &. The falsification of his boo, an official document, was not necessary to commit malversation A gave k to *, a policeman because * agreed to steal a gun from the property custodian of the City !olice %epartment. $n consideration for the k, * stole the gun and gave it to A. There is no bribery because that act which 3, the policeman, agreed to perform, although constituting the crime of theft, is not connected with the performance of his official duty.  A is liable for theft as principal by induction. +e is not liable for corruption of 12 because the policeman didn"t commit bribery. $f it was the property custodian who gave the g un to A in consideration of the k, what is the crime Two crimes will be committed. It"s malversation and bribery. Art. &C provides a penalty >in addition to? the penalty corresponding to the crime agreed upon, if the same shall have been committed. $s mere agreement enough in consummated fraud against the public treasury es, as long as the purpose is to defraud the government. If the private person was in conspiracy with the 12, then he will also be liable under Art. &5. &hat crime is committed by a ta) collector who, by means of deceit, succeeded in receiving from the ta)payer a sum larger than that fi)ed by law Gstafa by means of deceit.

0uring the preliminary investigation by the fiscal of a theft case, the police investigators gave to the fiscal the evidence consisting of a wallet and several money bills inside. The fiscal ept the evidence but spent the money. hat was the fiscal"s crime8 Malversation under Art. . This is because he received the money from the police by reason of his office and he had the obligation under the law to eep the same to be used as evidence. Malversation is committed by the depository of funds o r property attached, seiJed or deposited by public authority, even if such property belongs to a private individual.

hat crime, if any, was committed by the municipal mayor who allowed a prisoner detained in the municipal /ail to eat in the maret near the municipal building 5 times a day, but always under guard8 None. eniency or la$ity is n ot infidelity in the custody of prisoners. +owever, the mayor is guilty of infidelity in the custody of prisoner if he made the prisoner his houseboy. $n what cases is the penalty for parricide, which is 2!death, not to be imposed even if the crime committed is parricide &) mistae in identity of the victim ) death under e$ceptional circumstances 5) if it was through negligence or recless imprudence


 A punched 3"s face. hen A drew his gun, 3 turned around and fled, but A shot him, hitting him in the bac and mortally wounding him. 3 died.  A is only guilty of homicide. +e did not deliberately choose to shoot 3 from the bac. There was no treachery. [email protected] provocation

The common law husband of 3 shot her with a gun, hitting her in the abdominal region of her body. 3 died. iable for murder. Too advantage of superior strength. (strength and weapon)

 A hit 3 at the bac of his head. 3 did not need medicine as no would was caused on his head, but he was not able to wor for one wee. After one wee, he realiJed he was colorblind. hat is the crime8 erious physical in/uries, because 3 lost the use of an eye.

 A inflicted a wound on 3 in a fight. The wound remained open for D days. 3 only cleaned it with water and didn"t apply medicine. 3"s wound did not prevent him from performing wor. light physical in/uries only, because there was no medical attendance and no incapacity to wor.

In a 9uarrel, A shoved the face of 3 until the latter fell on te floor. 3 did not suffer physical in/uries. hat is the crime8 light physical in/ury (illHtreatment)

 A and 3 idnapped and detained = for a wee to compel the latter to wor in a plantation in Mindanao without salary. 3efore A and 3 could board a vessel for Mindanao, a policeman rescued =. what crime was committed by A and 3% lavery (Art D) because of the purpose.

 A stabbed 3 in the abdomen and seriously wounded him. A left him in an uninhabited place where the crime was committed. Is he liable for a bandonment of his own victim8 No. Art D6(&) punishes a person for not helping out a person who is in danger in an uninhabited place. The person in danger must not also be the victim of the accused. Art D6() also inapplicable because it re9uires an accident.

 A, while driving his /eep, bumped and ran over a pedestrian who was seriously in/ured. A abandoned him  A is liable for physical in/uries or homicide through recless imprudence (if pedestrian dies) and abandonment of one"s own victim by failing to help or render assistance to another whom he accidentally in/ured

 A saw a ' year old child in a maret place who was abandoned. A did not mind the child. Is he liable8 No. the maret is not an unsafe place as contemplated by Art D6(5) A without intent to kill, left her  year old child in their house, which she abandoned permanently. The child died of hunger. A thought someone would find her there. She ust wanted to avoid caring for the child he committed abandoning a minor. There being no intent to ill, no parricide.

 A, a & year old girl living in the house of 3, invited 4 to come over to the house. 3 scolded A for letting 4 enter. Is 4 liable or trespass to dwelling8 No. the invitation of the member of a household was enough. There was no e$press prohibition by the owner

hat is the criminal liability of a servant who opened the window of the house of her master to mae possible the entrance of her suitor in the house through the window8 hat is the liability of the suitor8 [email protected] principal by indispensable cooperation in 9ualified trespass to dwelling. uitor is principal by direct participation in 9ualified trespass to dwelling. (C& test KD held it was trespass to dwelling only) A threatened a woman that he would killer her if she would not fuck him. *ecause of the threat, the woman let A fuck her. &hat crime was committed 7ape by intimidation. hen a crime specifically punished by law, forms part of the element of another crime actually committed, the former is absorbed by the latter.


"owever, if A threatened the woman that he would kill her husband if she did not consent to se), and the ne)t day, the woman agreed to the condition to save her husband, w hat crime would be committed :rave threats only because A threatened the woman with the infliction upon the person of her husband of a wrong amounting to a crime with a condition. +ere, it"s future harm. 2ne day elapsed.

 A told 3 that he would ill him if the latter would not send him &CL within ' hours, and 3 sent the money the ne$t day. hat is the crime8 :rave threats only. The gain obtained was not immediate. As he only got the money the ne$t day. If it were immediate, then it would be robbery with intimidation. &hat is blackmailing and under what provision in the 2!C may it be punished 3lacmailing is the unlawful e$tortion of money by an appeal to the fear of the victim, or by threats of accusation or e$posure. It is punished in the 714 as light threats. It is a threat to commit a wrong not constituting a crime, demanding money or imposing any other condition. Thus, if A sent a note to a woman, stating therein that the would testify against her in the case where she was charged with adultery, unless she would send him &L, then its light threats. 3lacmailing, consisting of a threat to publish a libel and offering to prevent such publication for a compensation, is also punished by the 714 as a crime against honor. A, in the heat of anger, struck * with a cane, saying, $ will kill youE. * suffered slight physical inuries. &hat’s the crime light physical in/uries. The threat was part of the assault. A saw * enter his land to occupy the same. A, by means of force, prevented * from entering his land. $s there grave coercion No. Art. '-. 0octrine of selfHhelp. 7easonable for force necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful or physical invasion of his property A was an employee of a manufacturing establishment. "e learned the secret of the industry. "e resigned and used the secret of the industry for his own benefit. $s he liable No, he"s not liable for revelation. The crime of revelation re9uires the revelation of the secrets to the pre/udice of the owner of such secrets, and not using the secrets for himself. A entered the house of * through the window and once inside, took money and ewelry belonging to * after intimidating him with a pistol. &hat kind of robbery 7obbery with intimidation. A broke the wooden gate of a stone w all around the premises of * and once inside, took from the yard of * building materials which were lying there. &hat crime was committed Theft, because although he broe open the gate, he did not enter the house with force upon things. +e only entered the yard. A smashed *’s car window and stole the laptop inside. &hat was the crime Theft because the car is not a building. 7obbery w% use of force upon things

place entered must be a building.

&hile a woman was walking along (akati avenue, a man following her snatched her handbang and ran away. The man is l iable for theft only. Mere snatching is not violence. If, however, the hand was dragged or the woman resisted and the man pulled it, then it"s robbery. A held up * at gun point, threatening to kill him and succeeded in taking a watch from *. &hen he reached home, A found that the watch was his. &hat crime was committed :rave threats. &hat crime is committed by the servant who opened the locked chest with the key that she stole from the owner and therafter took money and ewelry therefrom


Fualified theft. A entered the house of * through an open door. ;nce inside, A found a locked receptacle containing ewelry. A took it and carried it away. As soon as he reached his house, he broke it open and took its contents. &hat crime was committed by A 7obbery w% use of force upon things.

A gave *, a anitor in his office, !"!0>> with instruction to p ay A’s insurance premium to the insuramce company. * spent the money. &hat was the crime Theft. 2nly physical possession, no /uridical possession. A found *’s wallet containing !"!>>. A gave it to C to be delivered back to *. C took the money. 4 liable for theft. 2nly physical possession ac9uired. &hat crime is committed by a person who shot the cow which was destroying his plantation and then and there took the meat from dead cow imple theft. 4ow was not taen. &hat crime was committed by a person who stole crabs and shrimps from a fishpond belonging to antoher Fualified theft. •

 A boy, D years old, found a wallet with money in it. +e gave it to his dad. +is dad spent the money. #ather committed theft. hen he got the wallet, he assumed by voluntary substitution, the physical possession of the wallet. Thus, when he too and spent the money that was not his, it constituted theft. * found on the street a ring worth !"!0>>. "e took it home and later, claiming to be the owner thereof, sold it for !"!1>>. &hat crimes were committed Theft for having found lost property and faling to return it, and estafa by means of deceit, for falsely pretending to be its owner 5, knowing he didn’t have money, rode a ta)i and when he reached his destination, he couldn’t pay the fare. 2ther deceits under Art. 5&E. A person made a forecast of what would happen at a certain future time. None. The telling of fortunes must be profit or gain. ince he wasn"t paid for it, then there"s no crime. $s the husband criminally liable for taking his wife’s ewelry from her wardrobe which was inherited by her from her parents after opening the wardrobe with a piece of w ire No. theft against the wife. +usband is only civilly liable A visited his married sister who lived in a different house. &hile in his sister’s house, he saw her purse, opened it and got money. $s he criminally liable es, because bros and sis are e$empt from crim liability for committing theft, swindling, or malicious mischief only when they are living together. A took his mom’s safe, carried it to a place behind the garage, and broke it open and took its contents. +e"s criminally liable for robbery w% force upon things. The safe is a loced receptacle. A surprised his wife in the room of a hotel with another man w hile both were undressed. They were not fucking when they were surprised. %id the woman and paramour commit adultery No, Attempted adultery only. A, wife of *, surprised the latter and another woman in a motel while having se). Can A sue * for concubinage No. 0id not eep woman in con/ugal dwelling, was not scandalous and did not cohabit.


The husband, whnever his wife was away, fucked their maid in their house. $s the husband liable for concubinage No. It is necessary that the woman be taen in as a concubine. +owever, if the servant was under &E and was a virgin, then its 9ualified seduction.

%oes the ac+uittal of one defendant operate as a ground for the ac+uittal of the other in the crimes of adultery and concubinage No, because in adultery, the man may not now that the woman is married and in concubinage, the woman may not now that the man is married. There is no /oint criminal intent. A, becoming angry with an ugly woman, grabbed her b y the neck with his left arm, touched her breast and private parts in a public place, only to put her to shame. :iable es for acts of lasciviousness. motive immaterial in acts of lasciviousness. The essence of lewdness is the very act itself. A was courting *, a woman. * did not want to be his lover but was willing to get attention from him. ;ne day, A forcibly embraced her and kissed her a number of times and touched her breast. No liability for acts of lasciviousness. >A lover"s embrace and issed? are n ot lascivious #ather had se) with his daughter, 9> years old and a widow Fualified seduction, by an ascendant who seduced his descendant. *rother had se) with his married sister, knowing her to be married  Adultery A wrote a letter to *, a respectable woman, that the latter was the paramour of C. The letter was in a sealed envelope and sent through mail.  A not liable for libel. No publicity. If, however, the letter was sent to 3"s husband and the husband read it, A will be liable because there was publicity. A called * a swindler in the presence of other persons. $t appears that * was really a swindler. $s malice presumed from such imputation es. Gven if it is true that 3 was a swindler, it is presumed to be malicious if no good intention and /ustifiable motive for maing it is shown. A received a letter from *, a woman and A’s sweetheart. C happened to get a hold of the letter and as it contained a statement of their meeting in a hotel 7A and *’s meeting8, C showed it to %. 4 liable for libel. 3ecause the person liable for libel is the one p ublished or caused the publication of defamation in writing or by similar means. A seduced *’s daughter, C. A refused to marry C. * threatened that he would file an administrative complaint against him with the SC to prevent him from taking the bar e)am because he was immoral No light threats. 3 did not threaten to commit a wrong. It is not wrong to file an admin complaint against a man who may not be fit to be l awyer. ";&4342 if for e$ample, the father of the seduced girl threatened to file an admin complaint if A didn"t pay him & and A drew a chec right then and there, the father is guilty of 7233G7 IT+ INTIMI0ATI2N. •

 A approached 3, a policeman and tld 3 to leave the place where he was patrolling as he would go up a house in the area through a window to steal some stuff and promised to give him & as soon as he had taen the property from the house.3, the policeman agreed and left the place. A succeeded in taing the property.  [email protected] 4orruption of public officer and theft [email protected] 0ereliction of duty (Art. CE), for maliciously tolerating the commission of a crime and 3ribery, agreeing to tolerate a crime in relation to his official duty (enforce the law, protect and serve) for a reward

If A changed his mind and did not enter the house. ould 3 still be liable8 es, but only for bribery (agreeing to tolerate a crime for money and it was in relation to his duty) No dereliction. No frustrated dereliction of duty under Art. CE because it"s a crime of omission.



View more...


Copyright ©2017 KUPDF Inc.