Criminal Law Questions and Answers sample

Estanislao Fernandez (4th Place, 1933) – Criminal Law, 97%

Q.- A received from B for safeguarding during B’s absence abroad a sealed trunk containing valuable articles. A afterwards broke the trunk open with a hatchet without B’s consent and appro­priated its contents to his own use. What crime did A commit? State your reason.

A.- This case falls within the intriguing boundary line of cases between theft and estafa.

The test whether a crime is one or the other is: was the juridical possession of the thing delivered with it to the offender? If so, then there is estafa; otherwise, theft results.

Juridical possession means a possession which gives the transferee a right over the thing which, in the words of Judge Albert, the transferee may set up even against the owner.

Tested by this rule, it is respectfully submitted that A is guilty of estafa. Estafa is committed by any person who shall defraud another by any of the following means:

(1) with ungratefulness or abuse of confidence, 

(2) by ap­propriating money, goods, or other personal property re­ceived in trust, for administration or on commission or under any obligation which imposes the duty to deliver or return the thing.

In the instant case, A was given the juridical posses­sion over the trunk, namely, the possession of a depositary, thereby imposing upon him by the duty to hold the prop­erty in trust and to deliver it to B on demand.

_________________________________________________________________________

Roberto Concepcion (1st Place, 1924) – Criminal Law, 95%

Q.- The municipal president of a town, in a fit of anger, muti­lated and destroyed a municipal payroll presented to him by the municipal treasurer for approval and signature. This payroll had not yet been signed by the other municipal officials as required by law. What crime, if any, was committed by the municipal president? Reasons.

A.- He has not committed any crime, because the papers destroyed were nothing more than some ordinary documents, a kind of rough draft (so we may say), because they were mere documents prepared to be converted into public documents. When they were destroyed, they did not have any value other than what they had materially as paper. At most, the president will be liable for the value of the papers destroyed, which is certainly too insignificant to raise the responsibility of said president to the category of crime.