Problems with bar examinees - Raymond Fortun

Why do many bar examinees fail? Atty. Raymond Fortun offers an answer.

Below is a Facebook post by Raymond Fortun on January 2, 2015. He was chosen as the bar examiner in criminal law in 2007. He is one of the most popular litigation experts in the country.

SOURCE: Raymond Fortun (2015). https://www.facebook.com/raymond.fortun/posts/10152659972532057

In 2007, i was chosen by the Supreme Court as the Bar Examiner for Criminal Law. In November 2007, i started checking the answers to the questions selected by the Bar Exam Chairman. Among the many answers given, one struck me as so UNIQUE for the sheer quality (??) of the English used. I photocopied the same and sent it to the Chief Justice, to conduct an investigation on how such an examinee was allowed by the law school to graduate, let alone to take the Bar Exams.

While going through my annual purging of files, i found the page i photocopied and my opinion has not changed. I hereby re-print the same for your 'enjoyment'. This is re-printed VERBATIM, i.e. as written by the examinee:

"Their is no charges may be charge to Anastacio by the raided police they may present evidence against Anastacio, in the first place Anastacio knew this alredy late when the raiding police surrounded the place. The defend of Anastacio in the raiding police he is innocent regarding the shabu session. Anastasio may also protest any charges against him. The raiding police question Anastacio regarding the time of raid that he was one arrested, by the police, to be arrested and file charges the police must during the time the place were surrounded by the raiding authority it is the routine all person during the time raided by the particular subject for interogation. But if not establish the said crime their is no charges, and person interogated with out probale cause to detained. Anastasia may only ask by the raiding police regarding the shabu session if he has a knowelged."

First word pa lang ("Their" when it should have been 'There'), mali na. "Alredy" instead of 'already', "defend" when the proper word was 'defense', "interrogation" spelled with a single R, "probale" instead of probable, "knowelged" instead of knowledge. Seriously, there wasn't a SINGLE sentence that was grammatically correct. I guess nerves or the pressure of the exam can explain some of this; the rest can be blamed on an uncooperative fountain pen. Not.

The punchline? I had to give this person at least a 7 (out of 10), because he got the answer right --- NO CRIME COMMITTED. With certain exceptions (e.g. malum prohibitum, negligence), it is basic in Criminal Law that there can be no crime in the absence of "criminal intent". Go slay me.

I rest my case, your Honor.