2013 (Criminal Law) Bar Exam Questions: Essay Question 6

[Answer/discuss the question below. Or jump to Criminal Law Essay Question 1, 2, 3, 4, 57, 8, 9, 10 and 11; Criminal Law Multiple Choice Question 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25; See also 2013 Bar Exam: Information, Discussions, Tips, Questions and Results]

VI.

Roberto bought a Toyota Fortuner from Inigo for P500,000. While driving his newly-bought car, Roberto met a minor accident that made the examination of his vehicle’s Registration Certificate necessary. When the policeman checked the plate, chassis and motor numbers of the vehicle against those reflected in the Registration Certificate, he found the chassis and motor numbers to be different from what the Registration Certificate stated. The Deed of Sale covering the sale of the Fortuner, signed by Inigo, also bore the same chassis and motor numbers as Roberto’s Registration Certificate. The chassis and motor numbers on the Fortuner were found, upon verification with the Land Transportation Office, to correspond to a vehicle previously reported as carnapped.

Roberto claimed that he was in good faith; Inigo sold him a carnapped vehicle and he did not know that he was buying a carnapped vehicle.

If you were the prosecutor, would you or would you not charge Roberto with a crime? (7%)

8 comments

  1. In Mel Dimat vs. People (2012) case, there were allegedly 2 sales of a carnapped Nissan Safari orginally owned by Mantequilla. First sale was from Tolentino to Dimat. Then the second sale was from Dimat to Sonia Delgado.

    Here, it was only Dimat who was charged before the RTC of violation with the anti-fencing law wherein paper works pertaining to the vehicle and sale thereof were presented as evidence the husband of Delgado, original owner Mantequilla and the police officers testified. after trial the RTC convicted him and the CA subsequently affirmed the same but with modification.

    On appeal to SC, one of Dimat’s arguments was that Sonia Delgado should also be held liable because she did not check the papers pertaining to the sale of the vehicle but the SC simply said that it “is of no moment since she did not stand accused in the case.” The SC affirmed

    So taking into consideration what the SC said, then examiner should accept any of the following logical answers in this essay question:

    1. Charge both Inigo and Roberto with the crime of fencing then explain the requisites for the criminal liability to attach and the facts of the case satisfying said requisites; or

    2. Charge only Inigo because he solely facilitated the sale of the vehicle which came from an illicit source, explain the requisites for the criminal liability to attach and the facts of the case satisfying said requisites and as to Roberto, either make him a witness or not to bother him at all.

    1. Hehe yan din case na nasa utak ko at that time pero medyo vague na ang facts sa akin kaya anti fencing na lang sagot ko by just citing requisites or elements and applying the same to the facts of the problem.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *