S.A 2020/21 B.E CRIMINAL LAW | Question #14
SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO THE 2020/21 BAR EXAMINATIONS IN CRIMINAL LAW
#CriminalLaw #PreviousBarQuestions
A person arrested for playing cara y cruz was charged with violation of Presidential Decree No. 1602 or the Anti-Gambling Law.
The lawyer for the accused argues that the case should be dismissed based on an exempting circumstance, which is that the accused is poor. The lawyer argues that unlike those who gamble in big casinos with astronomical sums of money, cara y cruz is the accused's only means of entertainment. In addition, the lawyer explains that gamblers from China, where gambling is illegal, are even welcomed in the Philippines.
Is the lawyer's argument legally tenable? Explain briefly.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the lawyer’s arguments are not tenable. Poverty is not among the exempting circumstances enumerated under Art. 13 of the Revised Penal Code.
Furthermore, P.D. No. 1602 is malum prohibitum where the only inquiry is whether the law has been violated. It is enough that the illegal act was done freely and consciously. When an act is illegal, the intent of the offender is immaterial (Tan, et.al. v. Ballena, et.al., G.R. No. 168111, 4 July 2008).
Code: S.A 2020/21 B.E CRIMINAL LAW | Question #14
MORE:
WEBSITE:
📎https://bit.ly/m/AttyEblogger
Visit 🔎 "Previous Bar Questions"
[Shopple Store 🛒]
📎 https://shopple.co/Lex-curiae
Visit 🔎 "Previous Bar Questions"
•Telegram
• Discord
Comments
Post a Comment