All Practice Exams
100+ Free Promotor de Justiça MPDFT Practice Questions
Prepare for the Concurso Público para Promotor de Justiça Adjunto (MPDFT) exam with instant access — no signup required.
✓ No registration✓ No credit card✓ No hidden fees✓ Start practicing immediately
100+ Questions
100% Free
Loading practice questions...
Same family resources
Explore More Brazilian Public Prosecution Career Examinations (Ministério Público)
Continue into nearby exams from the same family. Each card keeps practice questions, study guides, flashcards, videos, and articles in one place.
Sample Promotor de Justiça MPDFT Practice Questions
Try these sample questions to test your Promotor de Justiça MPDFT exam readiness. Each question includes a detailed explanation. Start the interactive quiz above for the full 100+ question experience with AI tutoring.
1A perpetrator breaks into an administrative office in Brasília with the intent to steal expensive computer servers. After disconnecting two servers and placing them into transport bags, but before exiting the building, he suffers a moral epiphany, unpacks the equipment, places the servers back onto the racks undamaged, and leaves empty-handed. Under Article 15 of the Brazilian Penal Code (Código Penal - CP), how must the Public Prosecutor (Promotor de Justiça) classify this conduct?
A.Attempted aggravated theft (tentativa de furto qualificado), because the executive acts were interrupted after the commencement of execution.
B.Voluntary abandonment (desistência voluntária), making the agent liable only for any preparatory acts that independently constitute punishable offenses such as trespassing.
C.Subsequent repentance (arrependimento posterior), which mandatory reduces the ordinary statutory penalty by one to two thirds at sentencing.
D.Effective repentance (arrependimento eficaz), because the agent prevented the consummation of the material result after having exhausted all executive acts.
Explanation: Under Article 15 of the Brazilian Penal Code, voluntary abandonment (desistência voluntária) occurs when the agent voluntarily interrupts the execution of the crime before exhausting all means at his disposal ('I can continue, but I choose not to'). In desistência voluntária (often doctrinally termed the 'golden bridge' or ponte de ouro), the attempt is excluded, and the agent is liable only for acts already performed (e.g., criminal trespass under Art. 150 CP).
2During a nighttime argument inside a residential condominium in Águas Claras (DF), an aggressor charges at a resident brandishing a sharp kitchen knife. The resident draws a lawfully registered firearm and fires a single non-lethal shot into the aggressor's leg, neutralizing the attack. However, while the aggressor lies disarmed and immobilized on the ground begging for mercy, the resident walks up and fires two lethal shots into the aggressor's chest. Under the Brazilian Penal Code, what is the criminal liability of the shooter?
A.Full justification under legitimate self-defense (legítima defesa real), because the initial confrontation was provoked exclusively by the knife-wielding aggressor.
B.Intentional excess (excesso doloso) in self-defense under Article 23, single paragraph of the CP, rendering the shooter fully liable for intentional homicide.
C.Excusable putative self-defense (legítima defesa putativa escusável), totally exempting the shooter from punishment under Article 20, §1º of the CP.
D.Culpable excess (excesso culposo), permitting conviction solely for involuntary manslaughter (homicídio culposo).
Explanation: Under Article 23, single paragraph, and Article 25 of the Brazilian Penal Code, legitimate self-defense requires the moderate use of necessary means to repel an imminent or current unjust aggression. Once the initial aggression ceased and the attacker was neutralized and disarmed, any further lethal force constitutes intentional excess (excesso doloso), making the agent criminally liable for intentional homicide (homicídio doloso).
3A suspect enters a major department store in a Brasília shopping mall, conceals three electronic gadgets inside a coat, and attempts to walk out through the exit doors. The entire movement was monitored in real time by security guards via electronic surveillance cameras and magnetic anti-theft tags. The guards apprehend the suspect on the sidewalk outside. The defense moves for absolute acquittal based on impossible crime (crime impossível - Art. 17 CP). According to the binding jurisprudence of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ Súmula 567), what is the correct legal ruling?
A.The existence of an electronic surveillance system in a commercial establishment makes theft absolutely impossible, requiring acquittal under Article 17 of the CP.
B.The mere presence of electronic surveillance systems or continuous security monitoring does not per se render theft an impossible crime, permitting conviction for attempted theft.
C.The crime is deemed fully consummated the instant the items were hidden under the coat, regardless of store security or subsequent apprehension.
D.The conduct is an unpunishable preparatory act because the commercial establishment implicitly consented to the risk by operating retail premises.
Explanation: STJ Súmula 567 establishes that 'the existence of an electronic security system or monitoring by security guards in a commercial establishment does not, by itself, render the crime of theft impossible.' The surveillance system makes apprehension more likely but does not create absolute inefficacy of the means, allowing prosecution for attempted theft (or consummated theft if the perpetrator established dispossession).
4In calculating the sentence of a defendant convicted of aggravated robbery in Ceilândia (DF), the sentencing judge increases the base penalty (pena-base) in the first phase of the three-phase methodology (Art. 59 CP) citing three ongoing police investigations (inquéritos policiais) and two pending criminal actions without final unappealable convictions (ações penais em andamento). According to STJ Súmula 444 and STF Tema 129, is this judicial aggravation lawful?
A.Yes, because ongoing investigations and non-final criminal actions demonstrate negative personality traits and habitual criminal conduct under Article 59 of the CP.
B.No, because ongoing police inquiries and pending criminal lawsuits without a final conviction cannot be used to aggravate the base penalty as bad antecedents.
C.Yes, provided the pending criminal lawsuits involve crimes of the same statutory species and were accompanied by formal indictments (denúncias recebidas).
D.No, but the judge may legitimately use those pending inquiries in the second phase as aggravating circumstances under Article 61 of the CP.
Explanation: STJ Súmula 444 provides that 'it is forbidden to use ongoing police investigations and pending criminal actions to increase the base penalty.' This rule stems from the constitutional presumption of non-guilt (Art. 5º, LVII of CF/88) and was reaffirmed in STF Repercussão Geral Tema 129 (RE 591.054).
5A bank teller in Taguatinga (DF), driven by a single criminal scheme to embezzle funds over a three-month period, executes six distinct acts of fraudulent fund diversion on the 10th and 25th days of each month, using identical computer manipulation techniques and misappropriating R$ 15,000 each time. Under Article 71 of the Brazilian Penal Code, how must the sentencing court structure the punishment for these offenses?
A.Apply the material concurrence rule (concurso material - Art. 69 CP), adding the penalties for all six distinct crimes together cumulatively.
B.Apply the continued crime rule (crime continuado comum - Art. 71, caput CP), applying the penalty of one single offense increased by one-sixth to two-thirds.
C.Apply formal concurrence (concurso formal impróprio - Art. 70 CP), applying the cumulative total because the agent possessed autonomous designs.
D.Treat the six acts as a single habit-based crime (crime habitual), prosecuting only the final completed diversion of funds.
Explanation: Under Article 71, caput of the Brazilian Penal Code, when an agent, through multiple actions or omissions, commits two or more crimes of the same species under similar conditions of time, place, manner of execution, and others of like nature, the subsequent offenses are considered a continuation of the first. The court applies the penalty of only one of the crimes (the most severe if not identical), increased by one-sixth to two-thirds (sistema da exasperação).
6A man in Samambaia (DF) murders his former romantic partner inside her residence because he refuses to accept the end of their relationship and treats her as his personal possession. The Promotor de Justiça files a denúncia charging aggravated homicide qualified by both base/frivolous motive (motivo torpe ou fútil - Art. 121, §2º, I or II CP) and femicide (feminicídio - Art. 121, §2º, VI c/c §2º-A, I CP). According to the prevailing jurisprudence of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), what is the compatibility of these two qualifying circumstances?
A.They are strictly incompatible because feminicídio is a subjective qualifier based on misogynistic motivation, which would result in unlawful bis in idem if combined with motivo torpe.
B.They are legally compatible because feminicídio is an objective qualifying circumstance related to the gender/domestic context, while motivo torpe is a subjective qualifying circumstance.
C.They can only be combined if the victim was pregnant or had a disability at the exact time of the lethal assault under Article 121, §7º of the CP.
D.Feminicídio absorbs all other statutory qualifiers, converting the homicide into an autonomous, non-bailable felony without additional qualifying circumstances.
Explanation: The Superior Court of Justice (STJ, e.g., HC 430.222/SP and AgRg no REsp 1.758.172/MG) has firmly established that feminicídio (Art. 121, §2º, VI CP) is an objective qualifying circumstance, as it relates to the factual condition of the victim being female in a context of domestic violence or gender discrimination. Therefore, it is fully compatible with subjective qualifying circumstances such as motivo torpe (vile motive) or motivo fútil (frivolous motive), without incurring double punishment (bis in idem).
7A driver in the Plano Piloto of Brasília engages in an unauthorized high-speed street race ('racha') along the Eixo Monumental at 140 km/h in a 60 km/h zone while heavily intoxicated. He runs a red light and smashes into a pedestrian crossing the avenue, killing her instantly. In distinguishing between conditional intent (dolo eventual) and conscious negligence (culpa consciente) for the purpose of submitting the defendant to the Jury Tribunal (Tribunal do Júri), what doctrinal standard must the Promotor de Justiça demonstrate?
A.That the driver foresaw the lethal result and acted with indifference, assuming the risk and accepting its occurrence (dolo eventual).
B.That the driver actively desired the specific pedestrian's death as the primary purpose of his conduct (dolo direto de primeiro grau).
C.That the driver genuinely believed his superior driving skills would avoid any collision despite foreseeing the possibility (culpa consciente).
D.That any lethal collision occurring during a street race creates an irrebuttable statutory presumption of premeditated direct intent.
Explanation: Under Article 18, I, second part of the Brazilian Penal Code, dolo eventual occurs when the agent foresees the concrete possibility of the harmful result and acts with indifference to its occurrence, assuming the risk ('anuência' or acceptance). In contrast, culpa consciente occurs when the agent foresees the result but sincerely believes it will not happen due to skill or luck. Demonstrating dolo eventual justifies submitting the defendant to trial before the Tribunal do Júri for intentional homicide.
8Two individuals carry out an armed robbery against a commercial store in Guará (DF). Individual A brandishes an authentic, loaded semi-automatic pistol, while Individual B carries an unloaded, non-firing replica plastic firearm (simulacro de arma de fogo). Both threaten the cashier and steal the cash register contents. In filing the formal charges under Article 157 of the Brazilian Penal Code, how should the use of the weapons be legally characterized?
A.Both weapons qualify as majorantes of armed robbery under Article 157, §2º-A, I of the CP, doubling the penalty for both defendants.
B.The authentic firearm brandished by Individual A triggers the statutory majorante of weapon use (Art. 157, §2º-A, I CP) communicating to both co-perpetrators, whereas a mere replica (simulacro) cannot independently ground the majorante.
C.The use of an unloaded or replica firearm completely negates the crime of robbery, reducing the charge for Individual B to misdemeanor theft (furto simples).
D.Neither weapon triggers the majorante unless the Public Prosecution produces the seized firearms with ballistics examination reports proving operational efficacy.
Explanation: Under current STJ jurisprudence and the cancellation of STF Súmula 174, the use of a toy or replica weapon (simulacro) serves to characterize the grave threat necessary for robbery (Art. 157, caput), but cannot be used to apply the special penalty increase (majorante) for weapon employment. However, because Individual A carried a real firearm, this objective circumstance of execution communicates to the co-perpetrator Individual B under Article 30 of the CP.
9In 2024, a business owner in Brasília discovers that an acquaintance defrauded his company of R$ 50,000 via a fraudulent investment scheme (estelionato - Art. 171 CP). The victim is a private non-vulnerable adult. Following the enactment of the Anti-Crime Package (Lei nº 13.964/2019), what is the statutory procedural nature of the criminal action for estelionato, and what are the exceptions?
A.The crime of estelionato is now prosecuted exclusively by unconditional public criminal action (ação penal pública incondicionada) in all circumstances.
B.The crime of estelionato is generally prosecuted by public criminal action conditioned upon victim representation (representação), except when committed against public administration, state-owned enterprises, children/adolescents, persons with mental disabilities, or vulnerable elderly persons.
C.Estelionato was converted into a private criminal action (ação penal privada) that must be initiated via formal private complaint (queixa-crime) within 30 days.
D.The action remains unconditionally public, but requires a pre-trial conciliation hearing under Law 9.099/1995 before formal charges may be lodged.
Explanation: Law nº 13.964/2019 amended Article 171, §5º of the Penal Code to make estelionato (fraud) an offense prosecuted by public criminal action conditioned on victim representation (ação pública condicionada à representação), unless the victim is: (I) public administration, direct or indirect; (II) a child or adolescent; (III) a person with mental disability; or (IV) an elderly person over 70 years of age or with physical/mental vulnerability.
10A 22-year-old adult engages in sexual relations with a 13-year-old adolescent in Planaltina (DF). In defense against charges under Article 217-A of the Penal Code (estupro de vulnerável), the defendant argues that the minor consented, that the parties maintained an affectionate dating relationship with parental knowledge, and that the minor had prior sexual experience. According to the text of the Penal Code (Art. 217-A, §5º) and STJ Súmula 593, how must the court rule on these defenses?
A.The consent of the minor and parental authorization operate as supralegal justifications excluding criminal wrongfulness (ilicitude).
B.The consent of the victim, prior sexual experience, or the existence of a romantic relationship are entirely irrelevant to the configuration of the crime of statutory rape of a vulnerable person.
C.Prior sexual experience reduces the classification to statutory corruption of minors under the Child and Adolescent Statute (ECA).
D.Parental consent shifts criminal liability exclusively to the parents for breach of protective custody duties.
Explanation: Under Article 217-A, §5º of the CP and STJ Súmula 593: 'The crime of estupro de vulnerável is configured with the mere practice of sexual conjunção carnal or other libidinous act with a minor under 14 years old, being irrelevant the eventual consent of the victim, his/her previous sexual experience, or the existence of a loving relationship between the parties.' The vulnerability is an absolute legal presumption.
About the Promotor de Justiça MPDFT Exam
The Concurso para Promotor de Justiça Adjunto do MPDFT is the prestigious judicial selection process for the Public Ministry of the Federal District and Territories, organized under Lei Complementar nº 75/1993 to select public prosecutors in Brasília. Prosecutors uphold democratic order, prosecute criminal offenses, and protect diffuse, collective, and individual homogeneous rights.
Assessment
Five stages: prova objetiva (100 questions, 5 hours, 1 point each — Grupo I 40, Grupo II 30, Grupo III 30); three provas discursivas, one per group, each with two parts and five hours; a third stage of medical examination, psychological assessment and sindicância de vida pregressa preceding the inscrição definitiva; prova oral of up to 20 minutes per group; and avaliação de títulos.
Time Limit
5 hours (300 minutes)
Passing Score
40% correct in each of the three thematic groups and a 65% final average of the whole paper
Exam Fee
R$ 377,65 (Ministério Público do Distrito Federal e Territórios (MPDFT))
Promotor de Justiça MPDFT Exam Content Outline
30%
Grupo I: Direito Penal e Direito Processual Penal
Crime theory, homicide trials (Júri), Maria da Penha, police investigations, evidence, preventive detention, and ANPP.
30%
Grupo II: Direito Civil e Empresarial e Direito Processual Civil e Coletivo
Civil Code, family, successions, civil procedure, MP intervention, urgent injunctions, and corporate bankruptcy.
25%
Grupo III: Direito Constitucional, Administrativo, Ambiental e Urbanístico e da Saúde, Direito da Criança e do Adolescente e Regime Jurídico do Ministério Público
DF constitutional autonomy, public procurement (Lei 14.133/2021), administrative improbity (Lei 14.230/2021), and DF tax competence.
15%
Direitos difusos, ECA e regime do MPDFT (cobrados dentro do Grupo III)
Public Civil Actions, consumer protection, ECA, urban planning in Brasília, and LC 75/1993 institutional rules.
How to Pass the Promotor de Justiça MPDFT Exam
What You Need to Know
- Passing score: 40% correct in each of the three thematic groups and a 65% final average of the whole paper
- Assessment: Five stages: prova objetiva (100 questions, 5 hours, 1 point each — Grupo I 40, Grupo II 30, Grupo III 30); three provas discursivas, one per group, each with two parts and five hours; a third stage of medical examination, psychological assessment and sindicância de vida pregressa preceding the inscrição definitiva; prova oral of up to 20 minutes per group; and avaliação de títulos.
- Time limit: 5 hours (300 minutes)
- Exam fee: R$ 377,65
Keys to Passing
- Work through all 100 available questions
- Review every answer and explanation
- Track weak areas and revisit them
- Use our AI tutor for tough concepts
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the role of a Promotor de Justiça Adjunto in the MPDFT?
A Promotor de Justiça Adjunto is an entry-level member of the MPDFT (part of the MPU under LC 75/1993), responsible for prosecuting crimes, conducting jury trials, defending diffuse and collective interests, and protecting vulnerable citizens in Brasília.
What are the passing criteria for the MPDFT Objective Examination?
Article 33 of Resolução CSMPDFT nº 342/2025 requires a minimum of 40% correct answers in each of the three thematic groups plus a final average of 65% of the whole 100-question paper. Both conditions must be met.
What legal experience is required for the MPDFT entrance competition?
Candidates must possess a Bachelor of Laws degree and have completed a minimum of three years of verified legal activity (atividade jurídica) following graduation.