Crim Law 2015 Bar Q And A

I. a. How are felonies committed? Explain each. Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit (dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa). There is deceit (malice) when the act is performed with deliberate intent; and there is fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill. b. What is aberratio ictus? Aberratio ictus means mistake of blow. In aberratio ictus, a person directed the blow at an intended victim, but because of poor aim, that blow landed on somebody else. In aberratio ictus, the intended victim as well as the actual victim, are both at the scene of the crime. In aberratio ictus, a person is criminally liable for committing an intentional felony although the actual victim is different from the intended victim due to mistake of blow. II. Distinguish between ex post facto law and bill of attainder. An ex post facto law is a law which retroactively affects that right or condition of an accused who committed a crime prior to its effectivity. A bill of attainder is a legislation that inflicts punishment on an individual without a judicial trial. In passing a bill of attainder, legislature in effect exercises judicial power in disregard of the doctrine of separation of power. III. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Tiburcio guilty of frustrated homicide and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of four years and one day of prision correccional as minimum, to eight years of prision mayor as maximum, and ordered him to pay actual damages in the amount of 1125,000.00. Tiburcio appealed to the Court of Appeals which sustained his conviction as well as the penalty imposed by the court a quo. After sixty days, the Court of Appeals issued an Entry of Judgment and remanded the records of the case to the RTC. Three days thereafter, Tiburcio died of heart attack. Atty. Abdul, Tiburcio's counsel, filed before the RTC a Manifestation with Motion to Dismiss, informing the court that Tiburcio died already, and claiming that his criminal liability had been extinguished by his demise. a) Should the RTC grant the Motion to Dismiss the case? Explain.

Yes, but only in regard to Tiburcio’s criminal liability or personal penalties. The law provides that criminal liability is totally extinguished by the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment. In this case, the judgment of the Court of Appeals, with regard to pecuniary liabilities, became final and executory as Tiburcio did not appeal within the period allowed by law. As such, the pecuniary liabilities were not extinguished by his death. b) Assuming that Tiburcio' s death occurred before the Court of Appeals rendered its decision, will you give a different answer? Explain. With regard to the personal liability, it is the same answer. The personal liability was extinguished by the death of the convict. As regards the pecuniary/civil liability, it will also be extinguished. The law provides that upon the death of an accused pending appeal, his criminal liability and the corresponding civil liability arising from crime are extinguished. IV. Procopio, a call center agent assigned at a graveyard shift, went home earlier than usual. He proceeded immediately to their bedroom to change his clothes. To his surprise, he found his wife Bionci in bed making love to another woman Magna. Enraged, Procopio grabbed a knife nearby and stabbed Bionci, who died. a) What crime did Procopio commit, and what circumstance attended the case? Explain. Procopio committed the crime of parricide. Under the law, any person who shall kill his father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or any of his ascendants or descendants, or his spouse, shall be guilty of parricide. In the instant case, the victim was the offender’s spouse, as such, the crime committed was parricide. It was attended by a mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation. For passion or obfuscation to be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance, the following requirements must be present: 1)

there was an act that was both unlawful and sufficient to produce such condition (passion or obfuscation) of the mind;

2)

such act was not far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of time, during which the perpetrator might have recovered his normal equanimity; and

3)

passion must arise from lawful sentiment of the offender and not from the spirit of lawlessness or revenge.

In this case, all the above requirements were met given that the act of Bionci and Magna making love produced the passion or obfuscation in Procopio’s mind and the same was from lawful sentiment since he is Bionci’s lawful husband. b) Assuming that Procopio and Bionci were common-law spouses, will your answer be the same? Explain. No. Relationship of the victim to the offender is the essential element of the crime of parricide. If Procopio and Bionci were just common-law spouses, then the crime would be homicide. The attending circumstance of passion or obfuscation will not be appreciated in this case as it would not arise from lawful sentiments. V. Dion and Talia were spouses. Dion always came home drunk since he lost his job a couple of months ago. Talia had gotten used to the verbal abuse from Dion. One night, in addition to the usual verbal abuse, Dion beat up Talia. The next morning, Dion saw the injury that he had inflicted upon Talia and promised her that he would stop drinking and never beat her again. However, Dion did not make good on his promise. Just after one week, he started drinking again. Talia once more endured the usual verbal abuse. Afraid that he might beat her up again, Talia stabbed Dion with a kitchen knife while he was passed out from imbibing too much alcohol. Talia was charged with the crime of parricide. a) May Talia invoke the defense of Battered Woman Syndrome to free herself from criminal liability? Explain. No. For Battered Woman Syndrome to be invoked as a defense, the infliction of physical harm must be cumulative. Since the abuse must be cumulative, there must be at least two episodes involving the infliction of physical harm. In the instant case, there was only one episode of infliction of physical harm and the other episodes are all verbal abuse. Thus, a single act of battery of physical harm resulting to the physical and psychological or emotional distress is not sufficient to avail of the benefit of justifying circumstance of battered woman syndrome. b) Will your answer be the same, assuming that Talia killed Dion after being beaten up after a second time? Explain. No. As a result of at least two episodes involving the infliction of physical harm, Talia suffered physical and psychological or emotional distress, and as such, she can now invoke the battered woman syndrome as a defense. The battered woman syndrome requires at least two battering episodes.

VI. Senator Adamos was convicted of plunder. About one year after beginning to serve his sentence, the President of the Philippines granted him absolute pardon. The signed pardon states: "In view hereof, and in pursuance of the authority vested upon me by the Constitution, I hereby grant absolute pardon unto Adamos, who was convicted of plunder in Criminal Case No. XV32 and upon whom the penalty of reclusion perpetua was imposed." He now comes to you for advice. He wants to know if he could run for senator in the next election. a) What advice will you give Adamos? Explain. I will advise Adamos that he cannot run for senator or for any public office. Under the law, a pardon shall not work the restoration of the right to hold public office (elective or appointive) unless such right be expressly restored by the terms of the pardon. The penalty of reclusion perpetua carries with it perpetual absolute disqualification which the offender shall suffer even though pardoned as to the principal penalty, unless the same shall have been expressly remitted in the pardon. In the instant case, it was not expressly stated in the terms of the absolute pardon granted to Adamos by the President that his civil and political rights were restored. b) Assuming that what Adamos committed was heading a rebellion for which he was imposed the same penalty of reclusion perpetua, and what he received was amnesty from the government, will your answer be the same? Explain. No, my answer will not be the same. In this case, Adamos may now run for senator or for any public office. The law provides that criminal liability, penalty, and all its effects are totally or completely extinguished by amnesty. VII. Taylor was convicted of a violation of the Election Code, and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment of one year as minimum, to three years as maximum. The decision of the trial court was affirmed on appeal and became final and executory. Taylor failed to appear when summoned for execution of judgment, prompting the judge to issue an order for his arrest. Taylor was able to use the backdoor and left for the United States. Fifteen years later, Taylor returned to the Philippines and filed a Motion to Quash the warrant of arrest against him, on the ground that the penalty imposed against him had already prescribed. a) If you were the judge, would you grant Taylor's Motion to Quash? Explain.

No. The law provides that the period of prescription of penalties shall commence to run from the date when the culprit should evade the service of his sentence. The prescription period begins only when the convict evades service of sentence by escaping during the term of his sentence. In the instant case, since Taylor was never placed in confinement, the period of prescription never started to run in his favour. b) Assuming that instead of the United States, Taylor was able to go to another country with which the Philippines had no extradition treaty, will your answer be the same? Explain. Yes, my answer will be the same as the prescription never began in the first place. VIII. A typhoon destroyed the houses of many of the inhabitants of X Municipality. Thereafter, X Municipality operated a shelter assistance program whereby construction materials were provided to the calamity victims, and the beneficiaries provided the labor. The construction was partially done when the beneficiaries stopped helping with the construction for the reason that they needed to earn income to provide food for their families. When informed of the situation, Mayor Maawain approved the withdrawal of ten boxes of food from X Municipality's feeding program, which were given to the families of the beneficiaries of the shelter assistance program. The appropriations for the funds pertaining to the shelter assistance program and those for the feeding program were separate items on X Municipality's annual budget. a) What crime did Mayor Maawain commit? Explain. Mayor Maawin committed the crime of technical malversation or illegal use of public funds or property. The law provides that any public officer who shall apply any public funds or property under his administration to any public use other than for which such fund or property were appropriated by law or ordinance shall be guilty of technical malversation. In the instant case, the 10 boxes of food was clearly for the feeding program, not for the shelter assistance program. As such, the funds/property were used illegally. b) May Mayor Maawain invoke the defense of good faith and that he had no evil intent when he approved the transfer of the boxes of food from the feeding program to the shelter assistance program? Explain. No. Criminal or evil intent is not an element of technical malversation. The law punishes the act of diverting public property earmarked by law or ordinance for a particular public purpose to another public purpose. The offense is mala prohibita, meaning that the prohibited act is not inherently immoral but becomes a criminal offense because positive law forbids its

commission based on considerations of public policy, order and convenience. It is the commission of the act as defined by law, and not the character or effect thereof, that determines whether or not the provision has been violated. Hence, malice or criminal intent is completely irrelevant. *** See Ysidoro vs People, GR No. 192330, November 14, 2012 IX. The Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) had intelligence reports about the drug pushing activities of Rado, but could not arrest him for lack of concrete evidence. SP03 Relio, a PDEA team leader, approached Emilo and requested him to act as poseur-buyer of shabu and transact with Rado. Emilo refused, saying that he had completely been rehabilitated and did not want to have anything to do with drugs anymore. But he was prevailed upon to help when SP03 Relio explained that only he could help capture Rado because he used to be his customer. SP03 Relio then gave Emilo the marked money to be used in buying shabu from Rado. The operation proceeded. After Emilo handed the marked money to Rado in exchange for the sachets of shabu weighing 50 grams, and upon receiving the pre-arranged signal from Ernilo, SP03 Relio and his team members barged in and arrested Rado and Ernilo, who were both charged with violation of R.A. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. a) What defense, if any, may Emilo invoke to free himself from criminal liability? Explain. Emilo may invoke the defense of instigation. Instigation is the means by which the accused is lured into the commission of the offense charged in order to prosecute him. In the instant case, the officers of the law incited, lured, induced, and prodded Emilo to buy shabu from Rado, which Emilo would otherwise not have committed and had no intention of committing. a) May Rado adopt as his own Ernilo's defense? Explain. No. Rado was caught during a valid entrapment/buy bust operation. No PDEA officer induced or prodded him to commit the offense. The idea to commit the crime originated from him alone. As such, he may not invoke the defense of instigation. X. Honesto and Wilma were married but had been living separately due to irreconcilable differences. Honesto later met Celia and fell in love with her. Thinking that he could marry Celia if Wilma were to die, Honesto decided to kill Wilma. He secretly followed Wilma for weeks to learn her daily routine. He decided to kill her at night on her way home. On the night he was to

kill Wilma, Honesto wore dark clothes so that he would not be easily seen. He waited in the dark alley for Wilma to pass by. He saw someone whom he thought looked like Wilma and shot her with a revolver. The bullet passed through the person's head and grazed another passerby's arm. Some bystanders who heard the shot were able to stop Honesto. It turned out that Wilma did not report for work on that day, and the one who was shot in the head was Melba, who died. The passerby whose arm was grazed by the bullet required medical attendance for two days. a) What crime(s) did Honesto commit? Explain. For killing Melba, Honesto committed the crime of murder. Even if Melba was not the intended victim, still, Honesto is liable. The law provides that criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committing a felony although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. The crime was murder because it was attended by an aggravating circumstance of premeditation. For the injuries suffered by the passerby, Honesto committed the crime of slight physical injuries. Under the law, slight physical injuries are injuries which incapacitated the offended party for labor from 1-9 days, or required medical attendance during the same period. b) Will your answer be the same, assuming that the other passerby was hit in the left eye which caused his/her blindness? Explain. No. Honesto will then be guilty of serious physical injuries. Under the law, the crime is serious physical injuries when the injured person becomes insane, imbecile, impotent, or blind in consequence of the physical injuries inflicted. XI. Nel learned that Elgar, the owner of the biggest house in the place, would be out of town for three days with no one left to watch the house. He called his friends Ben, Ardo and Gorio and they planned to take the valuables in the house while Elgar was away. Nel and Ben would go inside the house, Ardo would serve as the lookout, while Gorio would stay in the getaway car. When Elgar left, they carried out their plan to the letter. Nel and Ben went inside the house through the backdoor which was left unlocked. None of the rooms and drawers inside were locked. They took the money, jewelry and other valuables therefrom and immediately left using the getaway car. After driving for about one kilometer, Nel realized he left his bag and wallet with IDs in the house and so he instructed Gorio to drive back to the house. Nel just went in thinking that the

house was still empty. But to his surprise, Nel found Fermin seated on a bench with Nel's bag and wallet beside him and appeared to be texting using his smart phone. Nel took a golf club near him and hit Fermin with it. Fermin shouted for help, but Nel kept hitting him until he stopped making noise. The noise alerted the neighbor who called the police. Nel, Ben, Ardo and Gorio were caught. Fermin died. What is the criminal liability of Nel, Ben, Ardo and Gorio? Explain. (5%) Nel is liable for the crime of robbery with homicide. The law provides that robbery with homicide is committed when by reason or on the occasion of the robbery (taking of personal property belonging to another with intent to gain), the crime of homicide is committed. Ben, Ardo, and Gorio’s liability on the other hand, must be limited only to the crime of robbery as they did not have knowledge in the killing of Fermin. Having not entered the house when they went back, they could not have tried to prevent the killing as is required of one seeking relief from liability for assault committed during the robbery. XII. Ando, an Indonesian national who just visited the Philippines, purchased a ticket for a passenger vessel bound for Hong Kong. While on board the vessel, he saw his mortal enemy Iason, also an Indonesian national, seated at the back portion of the cabin and who was busy reading a newspaper. Ando stealthily approached Iason and when he was near him, Ando stabbed and killed Iason. The vessel is registered in Malaysia. The killing happened just a few moments after the vessel left the port of Manila. Operatives from the PNP Maritime Command arrested Ando. Presented for the killing of Iason, Ando contended that he did not incur criminal liability because both he and the victim were Indonesians. He likewise argued that he could not be prosecuted in Manila because the vessel is a Malaysian-registered ship. Discuss the merits of Ando's contentions. (4%) Ando’s contentions are bereft of merits. This is because of the generality principle. Under our Civil Code, penal laws shall be obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in the Philippine territory. The foreign characteristic of an offender does not exclude him from operation of penal laws. Ando’s argument that he did not incur criminal liability because both he and the victim were Indonesians is not tenable. XIII. Dora gave Elen several pieces of jewelry for sale on commission basis. They agreed that Elen would remit the proceeds of the sale and return the unsold items to Dora within sixty days. The period expired without Elen remitting the proceeds of the sale or returning the pieces of jewelry. Dora demanded by phone that Elen turn over the proceeds of the sale and return the

unsold pieces of jewelry. Elen promised to do so the following day. Elen still failed to make good on her promise but instead issued post-dated checks. Thereafter, Dora made several more demands, the last of which was in writing, but they were all unheeded. When the checks were deposited in Dora's bank account, the checks were returned unpaid for insufficient funds. Elen was charged with estafa and violation of Batas Pambansa Big. 22. Will the charges against Elen prosper? Explain. (4%) Yes. The elements of estafa with abuse of confidence are as follows: (1) that money, goods, or other personal property is received by the offender in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of, or to return the same; (2) that there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender, or denial on his part of such receipt; (3) that such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another. In the instant case, several pieces were given by Dora to Elen and the latter failed to remit the proceeds of the sale or return the pieces of jewelry upon demand. Demand is not an element of estafa, however, failure to account upon demand for funds or property held in trust or commission, is circumstantial evidence of misappropriation. The charge of violation of BP 22 will likewise prosper if, at the time of issue of the check, Elen knew that she did not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment. BP 22 requires that the person who made or drew and issued the check has knowledge of insufficiency of funds at the time of issue. Prosecution under BP 22 is not a bar for prosecution for Estafa, and the issuer of the check may be held liable for one or both crimes, singly or simultaneously when the complaints are filed in separate courts. XIV. Dela convinced Nita to work in Taiwan, promising Nita that she would take care of the processing of the necessary documents. Dela collected P120,000.00 from Nita purportedly for the processing of her papers. Upon receipt of the money, Nita was made to accomplish certain forms and was told that she would be deployed to Taiwan within one month. After one month, Nita followed up on her application. Dela made some excuses and told Nita that the deployment would be delayed. Another month passed and Dela made other excuses which made Nita suspicious. Nita later discovered that Dela was not licensed to recruit. Nita confronted Dela and demanded the return of her money. Dela promised to return the same in a week's time. a) A week later, Dela was nowhere to be found. What crime(s) did Dela commit? Explain. (2.5%)

Dela violated Article 315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code for the crime of estafa, which provides that estafa is committed by any person who defrauds another by using a fictitious name; or by falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business; by imaginary transactions or similar forms of deceit executed prior to or simultaneous with the fraud. The elements of estafa in general are the following: (a) that an accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit; and (b) that damage and prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused the offended party or third person. Dela’s act of falsely pretending to possess power and qualifications to deploy Nita to Taiwan, even if she did not have the authority or license for the purpose, undoubtedly constitutes estafa under Article 315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code. The elements of deceit and damage are clearly present; Dela’s false pretenses were the very cause that induced Nita to part with her money. b) Will your answer still be the same, assuming that the promise to deploy for employment abroad was made by Dela to Celia, Digna and Emma, in addition to Nita, and from whom Dela also collected the same amount of processing fee? Explain. (2.5%) Yes. However, in addition to estafa, Dela will also be guilty of the crime of illegal recruitment. The Labor Code defines recruitment as any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not; Provided, that any person or entity, which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee, employment to two or more persons, shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement. The crime of illegal recruitment is committed when two elements concur, namely: (1) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable one to lawfully engage recruitment and placement of workers; and (2) he undertakes any activity within the meaning of “recruitment and placement”. In the instant case, if Dela has made the promise to deploy abroad to two or more persons, knowing that she does not possess the license or authority to engage in recruitment and placement of workers, then she is guilty of the crime of illegal recruitment. Illegal recruitment and estafa cases may be filed simultaneously or separately. The filing of charges for illegal recruitment does not bar the filing of estafa, and vice versa. *** See Rosita Sy vs People, GR No. 183879, April 14, 2010 XV. Dancio, a member of a drug syndicate, was a detention prisoner in the provincial jail of X Province. Brusco, another member of the syndicate, regularly visited Dancio. Edri, the guard in charge who had been receiving gifts from Brusco everytime he visited Dancio, became friendly

with him and became relaxed in the inspection of his belongings during his jail visits. In one of Brusco's visits, he was able to smuggle in a pistol which Dancio used to disarm the guards and destroy the padlock of the main gate of the jail, enabling Dancio to escape. What crime(s) did Dancio, Brusco and Edri commit? Explain. (5%) Dancio did not commit any crime. If the prisoner removed or whose escape is made possible by the commission of the crime of delivering prisoner from jail is a detention prisoner, such prisoner is not criminally liable. A prisoner is criminally liable for leaving the penal institution only when there is evasion of the service of his sentence, which can be committed only by a convict by final judgment. Brusco, on the other hand, committed the crime of delivering prisoners from jail. Under the law, this crime is committed by any person who shall remove from any jail or penal establishment any person confined therein or shall help the escape of such person. In this case, Brusco helped Dancio escaped by smuggling in the pistol used by the latter in disarming the guards and destroying the padlocks which enabled him to escape. Edri, on his part, would be guilty of the crime of infidelity in the custody of detained persons or evasion through negligence, if, at the time of the escape, he was the guard charged with the custody of the prisoners. The law provides that if the evasion of the prisoner shall have taken place through the negligence of the officer charged with the conveyance or custody of the escaping prisoner, said officer shall be guilty of evasion through negligence. In the instant case, because of Edri’s laxity (which amounted to deliberate non-performance of duty) in the inspection of Brusco’s belongings during the latter’s jail visits, the pistol was smuggled in the jail which helped Dancio escaped. XVI. Erwin and Bea approached Mayor Abral and requested him to solemnize their marriage. Mayor Abral agreed. Erwin and Bea went to Mayor Abral's office on the day of the ceremony, but Mayor Abral was not there. When Erwin and Bea inquired where Mayor Abral was, his chief of staff Donato informed them that the Mayor was campaigning for the coming elections. Donato told them that the Mayor authorized him to solemnize the marriage and that Mayor Abral would just sign the documents when he arrived. Donato thereafter solemnized the marriage and later turned over the documents to Mayor Abral for his signature. In the marriage contract, it was stated that the marriage was solemnized by Mayor Abral. What crime(s) did Mayor Abral and Donato commit? Explain. (4%) Mayor Abral committed the crime of falsification of public document. Under the law, any public officer, employee, or notary, who, taking advantage of his official position, shall falsify a document by making untruthful statements in a narration of facts shall be guilty of falsification.

He clearly committed falsification of public documents by making untruthful statements in a narration of facts when, by taking advantage of his official function, he certified the marriage certificate of spouses Erwin and Bea that as the Mayor, he personally solemnized their marriage when it was Donato, his chief of staff, who did this on his behalf. Thus, for false declaration, Mayor Abral should be criminally liable. As regards Donato, his crime was usurpation of official functions. Under the law, usurpation of official function is committed by performing any act pertaining to any person in authority or public officer of the Philippine Government or of a foreign government or any agency thereof, under pretense of official position, and without being lawfully entitled to do so. In the instant case, it’s clear that Donato did not have the authority to solemnize marriages as this power was vested in the Mayor and cannot be delegated, yet he performed such act. XVII. After a heated argument over his philandering, Higino punched on the head his wife Aika, who was six and a half months pregnant. Because of the impact, Aika lost her balance, fell on the floor with her head hitting a hard object. Aika died and the child was expelled prematurely. After thirty-six hours, the child died. a) What crime(s) did Higino commit? Explain. (2.5%) Higino committed the complex crime of parricide with unintentional abortion. Parricide is committed when: (1) a person is killed; (2) the deceased is killed by the accused; (3) the deceased is the father, mother, child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or the legitimate spouse, or other legitimate ascendants and descendants. The key element in parricide is the relationship of the offender with the victim. Unintentional abortion, on the other hand, is committed by any person who shall cause an abortion by violence, but unintentionally. The elements of unintentional abortion are as follows: (1) that there is a pregnant woman; (2) that violence is used upon such pregnant woman without intending an abortion; (3) that the violence is intentionally exerted; (4) that as a result of the violence, the fetus dies, either in the womb or having been expelled therefrom. Even if the child who was expelled prematurely were alive at birth, the offense is abortion due to the fact that a fetus with an intrauterine life of less than 7 months is not viable. In the instant case, it is clear that Aika was six and a half months pregnant at the time she was killed; that violence was voluntarily exerted upon her by her husband; and that, as a result of said violence, Aika and her fetus died.

b) Assuming that when the incident occurred, Aika was only six months pregnant, and when she died, the fetus inside her womb also died, will your answer be different? Explain. (2.5%) My answer will be the same. As I indicated above, one of the elements of unintentional abortion is that as a result of the violence, the fetus dies, either in the womb or having been expelled therefrom. XVIII. Lito, a minor, was bullied by Brutus, his classmate. Having had enough, Lito got the key to the safe where his father kept his licensed pistol and took the weapon. Knowing that Brutus usually hung out at a nearby abandoned building after class, Lito went ahead and hid while waiting for Brutus. When Lito was convinced that Brutus was alone, he shot Brutus, who died on the spot. Lito then hid the gun in one of the empty containers. At the time of the shooting, Lito was fifteen years and one month old. What is Lito's criminal liability? Explain. (4%) It depends. If Lito committed the offense with discernment, he is criminally liable. If he acted without discernment, he is not criminally liable. Under the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act, a child above 15 years but below 18 years of age shall be exempt from criminal liability and be subjected to an intervention program, unless he acted with discernment, in which case, such child shall be subject to the appropriate proceedings. Discernment is determined by the court if a child is charged with a serious offense. XIX. Bruno, a taxi driver, had an indebtedness in the sum of P10,000.00 which would become due in one week. He was starting to worry because he still had not raised the amount to pay for his debt. Every day, he had prayed for divine intervention. One night, while returning the taxi to the garage, he found a wallet on the back seat. Inspecting it, he learned that it contained exactly Pl 0,000.00 cash, the amount of his obligation, and IDs. Thinking it was divine intervention, and that his prayers were answered, he took the money and used it to pay his debt. a) What crime, if any, did Bruno commit? Explain. (2.5%) Bruno committed the crime of theft. The law provides that any person who, having found lost property, shall fail to deliver the same to the local authorities or to its owner, shall be liable for theft. In this case, Bruno failed to return the property to the authorities or to the owner, knowing that the property does not belong to him. Intent to gain is inferred from the deliberate failure to deliver the lost property to the proper person.

b) Assuming that instead of using the money, Bruno turned over the wallet and its contents to the nearby police station, and it was the chief of police of that station who appropriated the money for his own benefit, what crime was committed by the chief of police? Explain. (2.5%) *********************no answer yet*****************************

XX. Senio planned to burn Bal' s house. One evening, during a drinking spree at his house, Senio told his friends what he intended to do and even showed them the gasoline in cans that he would use for the purpose. Carlo, a common friend of Senio and Bal, was present at the drinking spree. He was still sober when Senio told them his plans. Before going home, Carlo warned Bal that Senio would burn his house and had already bought gasoline that would be used for the purpose. Bal reported the matter to the police authorities. Meanwhile, Senio went to Bal' s house and proceeded to pour gasoline around the walls of the house and it was at that point when he was caught by the police. What crime did Senio commit, if any? Explain. (3%) The crime was attempted arson. In this case, Senio already commenced the commission of the crime of arson directly by overt act, which is the pouring of the gasoline around the walls of the house. This is not just a preparatory act because it already revealed a clear intention to burn the house. But he did not perform all the acts to execute his criminal intent to commit arson by setting the house on fire due to cause other than his spontaneous desistance, that is, having been caught by the police. XXI. Filipino citizens Hector and Wendy were married in New York, and have been living happily in Manila for the last three years. Hector was removing junk from his basement when he came across an unlabeled recordable cd. He put it in his computer's DVD drive to check its contents. To his surprise, he saw a video of Wendy and another man Ariel, in the act of sexual intercourse in the master's bedroom of his house. Angered by what he saw, he filed a complaint for adultery against Wendy and Ariel. During the course of the trial, and again to the surprise of Hector, it was proved that Wendy was born male and underwent sex reassignment later in life. a) May Hector's charge of adultery against Wendy and Ariel prosper? Explain. (3%) No. Adultery is committed by any married woman who shall have sexual intercourse with a man not her husband and by the man who has carnal knowledge of her knowing her to be married.

However, one who pretended to be a woman in marrying the complainant, cannot commit adultery since he is not a married woman. Neither is his sexual partner liable for adultery since this crime committed by the man presupposes that woman of whom he had carnal knowledge is also liable for adultery. This crime cannot unilaterally committed by the man. b) What is an impossible crime? Can there be an impossible crime of adultery? (2%) There is no impossible crime of adultery since this is a crime against chastity, and not against person or property. Impossible crime is an act which would have been an offense against person or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means. XXII. Charlie was charged for the qualified rape of AAA. The Information alleged that AAA was 14 years old at the time the crime was committed and that Charlie was AAA's stepfather. The presentation of AAA's birth certificate during the trial duly established the following: (1) that AAA was indeed 14 years old at the time of the rape; and (2) that AAA's mother is BBB and her father was the late CCC. BBB and Charlie only became live-in partners after CCC's death. The RTC found Charlie guilty of qualified rape. On appeal, the Court of Appeals convicted Charlie of simple rape. Charlie appealed before the Supreme Court. How will you rule and why? (3%) Charlie should be convicted of the crime of qualified rape. Under the law, it is qualified rape when the victim is under 18 years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the 3rd civil degree of affinity, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. In the case at bench, it was established that AAA was 14 years of age and Charlie was her stepfather when the crime was committed. Thus, Charlie is guilty of qualified rape.