2017 (Criminal Law) Bar Exam Questions: Question 4

[Answer/discuss the question below, or see 2017 bar exam Criminal Law Instructions; 2017 Criminal Law questions: 1235678910, and 11; See also 2017 Bar Exam: Information, Discussions, Tips, Questions and Results]


Maita was the object of Solito’s avid sexual desires. Solito had attempted many times to entice Maita to a date in bed with him but Maita had consistently refused. Fed up with all her rejections, Solito abducted Maita around 7 p.m. one night. With his cohorts, Solito forced Maita into a Toyota lnnova and drove off with her to a green- painted house situated in a desolate part of the town. There, Solito succeeded in having carnal knowledge of Maita against her will.

Meanwhile, the police authorities were tipped off that at 11:30 p.m. on that same night Solito would be selling marijuana outside the green-painted house. Acting on the tip, the PNP station of the town formed a buy-bust team with P02 Masahol being designated the poseur buyer. During the buy-bust operation, Solito opened the trunk of the Toyota lnnova to retrieve the bag of marijuana to be sold to P02 Masahol. To cut the laces that he had tied the bag with, Solito took out a Swiss knife, but his doing so prompted P02 Masahol to effect his immediate arrest out of fear that he would attack him with the knife. P02 Masahol then confiscated the bag of marijuana as well as the Toyota Innova.

(a) Two informations were filed against Solito in the RTC – one for forcible abduction with rape, raffled to Branch 8 of the RTC; the other for illegal sale of drugs, assigned to Branch 29 of the RTC. Was Solito charged with the proper offenses based on the circumstances? Explain your answer. (5%)

(b) While the Prosecution was presenting its evidence in Branch 29, Branch 8 convicted Solito. Immediately after the judgment of conviction was promulgated, Solito filed in both Branches a motion for the release of the Toyota lnnova. He argued and proved that he had only borrowed the vehicle from his brother, the registered owner. Branch 8 granted the motion but Branch 29 denied it. Were the two courts correct in their rulings? Explain your answer. (5%)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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