UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS

COLLEGE OF LAW
Baguio City

CRIMINAL LAW 1
POINTERS FOR THE MIDTERM EXAMINATION
OCTOBER 30, 2022

IMPORTANT INSTRUCTIONS WHEN ANSWERING:

 Read each question very carefully and write your answers in your examination notebook in the same order the questions
are posed. Write your answers only on the front, not the back, page of every sheet in your notebook.

 Answer the Essay questions legibly, clearly, and concisely. Start each number on a separate page. An answer to a sub-
question under the same number may be written continuously on the same page and the immediately succeeding pages
until completed.

 Your answer should demonstrate your ability to analyze the facts presented by the question, to select the material from
the immaterial facts, and to discern the points upon which the question turns. It should show your knowledge and
understanding of the pertinent principles and theories of law involved and their qualifications and limitations. It should
demonstrate your ability to apply the law to the given facts, and to reason logically in a lawyer-like manner to a sound
conclusion from the given premises.

 A mere "Yes" or "No" answer without any corresponding explanation or discussion will not be given any credit. Thus,
always briefly but fully explain your answers although the question does not expressly ask for an explanation. At the
same time, remember that a complete explanation does not require that you volunteer information or discuss legal
doctrines that are not necessary or pertinent to the solution to the problem. You do not need to re-write or repeat the
question in your Notebook.

 You can use the questionnaire for notes you may wish/need to write during the examination.

 Indicate the page numbers at the upper right hand portion of your examination notebook. Do not tear any page of your
notebook.

Please focus on (preferably memorize) the essential elements/rules/fundamentals of the following

concepts/principles/subject matter. Refer also to the cases studied. Either the principle will be asked in the MCQ or in the
essay portion:

1. Definition of Criminal Law and the main characteristics of Philippine Criminal Law
A branch of substantive law that defines crime, treats of its nature, and provides for their punishment.

Characteristics:
1. Generality – applies to all people who live and sojourn in the Philippines, irrespective of ager, sex, color,
creed, or personal circumstances
2. Territoriality – applies to all crime committed in the Philippine territory which includes its atmosphere
interiors waters and maritime zone (Art. 2)
3. Prospectivity – applies to all crime committed after the enactment of a law; cannot operate retrospectively
except if it favors the offender unless he is a habitual delinquent (Art. 22) or the law otherwise provides

2. Exemptions to the characteristics/cardinal features of criminal law

1. Generality –XPN
a. Treaty Stipulations (RP US Accord)

b. Laws of Preferential Application

i. Parliamentary Immunity of the Congress and Presidential Immunity
ii. RA 75 (Diplomatics and Consulars)

c. Principles of International Law

i. Sovereign and Head of State including the official family

Page 1 of 12
 ii. Ambassadors
iii. Minister Plenipotentiary
iv. Minister Residents
v. Charges d’ affaires
vi. Including their official retinue/entourage, provided that a list of their names are submitted
to the DFA.

2. Territoriality – crimes covered by extraterritoriality (art 2 RPC)

Explanation: shall be enforced outside of the jurisdiction of the Philippines against those, among others, who should
commit an offense while on Philippine ship or airship. The exception will apply if the Philippine ship or airship is
registered under the laws of the Philippines. The registered Philippine ship at the time of the commission of the crime
must be in the air space not within the jurisdiction of a foreign country.

3. Prospectivity – retroactive effect for laws or jurisprudence favorable to the accused

Explanation: If a penal law is favorable to the accused, it may be given retroactive effect, unless the accused is a habitual
deliquent or the law otherwise expressly provides.

3. Exceptions to the Territoriality Rule in Criminal law

As provided by Art. 2 of the RPC
1. Commit and offense on board a Phil ship or airship
2. Force or counterfeit a any coin or currency not of the Phil or obligations and securities issued by the gov of
the Rep of Phil
3. Liable for acts connected with the introduction into these islands of the obligations and securities mentioned
in the preceding number
4. While being public officer or employess, should commit an offe nse in the exercise of their functions
5. Commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations, defined in Title One of Book
Two of this Code
Others: Plunder committed at his place of assignment abroad by a Philippine public officer

4. Constitutional provisions limiting the power of Congress to enact penal laws

Art 7 Sec. : Congress shall not pass irrepealable laws
Art 3 Sec. : Congress shall not pass bill of attainders or ex post facto law
Art 3 : Cannot impose excessive penalties

Other answers:
1. The law must not be an ex post facto law or it should not be given a retroactive effect
2. The law must not be a bill of attainder, meaning it cannot provide punishment without judicial process.
3. The law must not impose cruel, unusual or degrading punishment.
4. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law (similar to number 2)

5. Concept of Ex Post Facto Law, Void for Vagueness Doctrine, Doctrine of Pro Reo and Equipoise Doctrine in
Criminal Law
Ex post facto law – operates retrospectively; punishes an act that was innocent when committed; increases a penalty
or lessens the quantum of evidence required for crimes committed prior to its enactment making it easier to convict
the accused

Void for vagueness – when the law is vague, the law is void

Equipoise Doctrine – when the weight of evidence is equal, the scale of justice shall tilt in favor of the accused

Doctrine of Pro Reo – When the law is susceptible to two interpretation, one favorable to the accused and one
unfavorable to the accused, the favorable to the accused must be the one to be taken.

6. Distinctions of Dolo and Culpa

Art 3, RPC
Dolo – intent; freedom; intelligence
Culpa – freedom; intelligence; imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight and lack of skill

7. Distinction of crimes mala in se and crimes mala prohibita

Mala in se
1. It is inherently wrong
2. Generally, it is punished under the Revised Penal Code.

Page 2 of 12
 3. Good faith is a defense
4. Criminal intent is necessary
5. Degree of accomplishment is taken into consideration
6. Degree of participation is taken into account
7. Circumstances affecting the criminal liability will be considered (JEMAA)

Mala prohibita
1. It is a crime, because the law punishes it, even if it is not inherently wrong
2. Generally punished under Special Penal Laws
3. Good faith is not a valid defense
4. Criminal intent is not necessary
5. Degree of accomplishment is not necessary
6. Degree of participation is not taken into consideration
7. Circumstances affecting criminal liability will not be considered (JEMAA)

8. Concept of conspiracy and particular rules in conspiracy

Art 8, RPC
Conspiracy as a manner of incurring criminal liability – present when 2 or more persons come to an agreement
concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.

 acts of one is act of all; regardless of degree of participation, all will be answerable as co-pricipals/ equally
responsible for acts of others
 requires the same degree of proof required to prove the crime (proof beyond reasonable doubt)
 can either be expressed or implied. Expressed – direct proof of planning and deciding together. Implied –
can be inferred from the acts of accused before, during and after the commission of the crime.

Conspiracy as a crime – considered as a single crime and has its own elements; conspiracy to commit rebellion, coup
d’etat, insurrection

9. Entrapment vs. Instigation

Entrapment – legal; law enforcement operation conducted to trap a person with an intent to commit a crime
1. Mens rea originated from accused who was merely trapped in flagrante delicto
2. Not absolutory since accused authored the idea
3. Consistent with public policy
4. Trap for unwary criminal (PP v. Dante Marcos, 185 SCRA 154)
5. Officer has no criminal liability for acts are in accordance with law
6. Crime already committed

Instigation – illegal; law enforcement officers induce a person to commit a crime

1. Criminal idea originated from peace officer who induced accused
2. Absolutory by reason of public policy
3. Contrary to public policy
4. Trap for unwary innocent
5. Peace officer is principal by inducement
6. Crime would not have been committed if not for the inducement

10. Proximate cause

Is that cause, which, in its natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces
the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred.

11. Motive and intent and when motive is essential

Motive – moving power or force which impels a person to commit acts to bring about a desired result;
1. GR: not material in a case
E: material when
-doubt in guilt or identity of accused
-evidence is circumstantial
-evidence is inconclusive
- No eyewitness

Intent – means to bring about desired results; mental state, the existence of which is demonstrated by over acts;
choice of a particular means; purpose of the mind and the resolve to with which a person proceeds
1. GR: general criminal intent is presumed
E: where intent is an element of the crime, it must be established (intent to kill in homicide; intent to lie in
rape bec the absence of which would downgrade the offense to acts of lasciviousness)
Page 3 of 12
 Illustration:
Motive – vengeance, desire to vindicate a wrong
Intent – intent to kill shown by the use of lethal weapon

12. Attempted/Frustrated/Consummated Felony (focus on the cases)

Art. 6, RPC (cite jurisprudence for each)

Attempted – There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of felony directly by overt acts, and
does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident
other than his own spontaneous desistance.

Frustrated – when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence
but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.

Consummated – when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present.

13. Light/Less Grave and Grave Felonies including penalties

Art. 9, RPC

Light Felonies – Arresto Menor; not exceeding 40,000 pesos (as amended by RA No. 10951)

Less grave: (Art 25)

1. Arresto Mayor (1 month and 1 day – 6 months)
2. Prision Correccional (6 months and 1 day – 6 years)
3. Suspension
4. Destierro

Grave : (Art 25)

1. Reclusion Perpetua (20 years and 1 day and above)
2. Reclusion Temporal (12 years and 1 day to 20 years)
3. Prision Mayor (6 years and 1 day to 12 years)
4. Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification
5. Perpetual or temporary special disqualification

14. Concept of an impossible crime/Elements of Impossible Crimes. Can there be a frustrated impossible crime? Is it
really a crime?
Art. 4, RPC
 Impossible crime – act performed is not accomplished bec of its inherent impossibility or employment of
inadequate or ineffectual means
 Elements:
1. Offender performed an act
2. Act is against persons and property
3. Intent to commit a crime
4. Crime was not produces because
a. Commission is inherently impossible
b. Means employed are inadequate or ineffectual
5. It should not constitute another violations of the RPC.
 No.

 Objectively, there is no crime committed, but subjectively is liable under Art. 4 of the RPC. What is being
punished is the criminal intent. Purpose of law is to suppress lawlessness or criminal tendency. Subjectively,
offender is criminal, but objectively, no crime committed. Crime of last resort.

15. Praeter Inentionem/Aberratio Ictus/Error in Personae

Praeter Inentionem
 The resulting consequence of the act is so grave a wrong than that intended.

Aberratio Ictus
 mistake in the blow; three persons involved, offender, actual and unintended victim;
 Directed the blow at the intended victim but because of poor aim it landed on the actual victim.

Page 4 of 12
  Generally produces a complex crime, provided the crime produced is two or more grave or less grave
felonies.

Error in Personae
 error in identity; two persons present, offender and the actual but unintended victim;
 The intended victim was not in the scene of the crime.
 It was the actual victim, upon whom the blow was directed, believing he was the intended victim.

16. What is a privileged mitigating circumstance? Distinguish a privileged mitigating circumstance from an ordinary
mitigating circumstance as to reduction of penalty and offsetting against aggravating circumstance/s.

OMC:
1. Offset by generic AC
2. Penalty is lowered to minimum period of penalty prescribed
3. Not considered when penalty is single and indivisible

PMC:
1. Cannot be offset by any AC
2. Penalty is lowered by one or two degrees
3. Always considered whether the penalty imposable is divisible or indivisible

17. Define an accomplice. Distinguish an accomplice from a conspirator as to their knowledge of the criminal design of
the principal, their participation, the penalty to be imposed in relation to the penalty for the principal, and the
requisites/elements to be established by the prosecution in order to hold them criminally responsible for their
respective roles in the commission of the crime.
a. Accomplice – one, not being a principal, cooperates in the execution of offense by previous of simultaneous acts;
supplies material or moral ais to the principal in an efficacious way, although not indispensable to the commission of
the crime; their participation and knowledge of the criminal intent of principals, makes them guilty of milder form of
responsibility as accomplices.
1. offender should take part in the execution of the crim by previous or simultaneous acts
2. he intends to take part in the commission of the crime
3. The acts should not be indispensable.

b. Conspirator – decides that the crime should be committed and actively participates in the commission

ACCOMPLICE CONSPIRATOR
Merely concurs decides that the crime should be committed
Cooperates by previous of simultaneous acts which Authors of the crime
are not indispensable to the crime
Merely instruments All perpetrators are liable as principals

18. Define a habitual delinquent. Distinguish habitual delinquency from recidivism as to the crimes committed, the
period of time the crimes are committed, the number of crimes committed and their effects in relation to the penalty
to be imposed on a convict.
RECIDIVIST HABITUAL DELINQUENT
CONVICTION 2 or more 3 or more
CRIMES COVERED Both under the same Title of RPC Falsification, Roberry, estafa, theft,
SPI and LSPI
PRESCRIPTION None. No time limit between 1st Prescribes after 10 years between
and 2nd offense 2nd and 3rd convictions
NATURE Generic; can be offset by OMC Special circumstance; cannot be
offset
PENALTY Increase is to the max period Entails additional penalty which
increases with the number of
convictions

19. Distinguish fully between entrapment and instigation in criminal law.

20. Enumeration of exempting, justifying and mitigating circumstances and its effect on crimes.
Page 5 of 12
  Justifying Circumstance
 The accused will be exempt from criminal and civil liability with the single exception of state of
necessity, whereby the civil liability is borne by those who benefited from it.

 Exempting Circumstance
 The accused will be exempt from criminal liability but not with the civil liability, with the exception of
accident whereby the accused will be exempt from both civil and criminal liability.

 Mitigating Circumstance
 Priveleged Mitigating Circumstance: It lowers the penalty by degree or two, cannot be offset by any
generic aggravating circumstance and can be applied even if the penalty is indivisible.

 Ordinary Mitigating Circumstance: It lowers the penalty in its minimum period, can be offset by a
generic aggravating circumstance and cannot be applied where the penalty is indivisible.

 Aggravating Circumstance
 Generic Aggravating Circumstance: it sets the penalty in its maximum period.

 Specific Aggravating Circumstance: It apply to certain crimes (e.g. Treachery for crimes against
persons)

 Qualifying Aggravating Circumstance: It changes the nature of the crime (e.g. from homicide to
murder because of the presence of treachery)

 Special Aggravating Circumstance: It arises under special conditions, and cannot be offset by a
mitigating circumstance (e.g. the crime resulted into a complex crime)

21. Elements of the justifying circumstance of state of necessity and performance of duty and obedience to a superior
State of necessity
1. evil sought to be avoided actually exists
2. injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it
3. no other practical and less harnful means of preventing it

Performance of Duty
1. offender acted in the performance of a duty or lawful exercise of a right or office
2. injury causes or offense committed is the necessary consequence of the due performance of such right or
office

Obedience to a superior order

1. order issued by superior
2. order is for legal purpose
3. means used to carry out such order is lawful

22. The Battered Woman Syndrome and RA 9262. Focus on the cycle of violence.
1. tension building phase – minor batering; verbal, physical and other forms of abuse

2. acute battering incident – brutality, destructiveness and sometimes death; BW deems this phse unpredictable but
also inevitable; BW has a sense of detachment from attack and terrible pain; so savage that bystanders and
intervenors are likely to get hurt

3. tranquil, loving (non-violent) phase – begins when the acute battering incident ends. Couple experience is
profound relief. Batterer is more tender, exhibits nurturing behavior to partner

23. Elements of Self-defense/defense of stranger/defense of relatives

a. self defense
1. unlawful aggression
2. lack of sufficient provocation
3. reasonable means to repel of prevent UL

b. defense of stranger
1. UL
2. reasonable means to repel of prevent UL
3. person making defense is not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive
Page 6 of 12
 c. defense of relatives
1. UL
a. 2. lack of sufficient provocation
3. reasonable means to repel of prevent UL
4. in case provocation is given by the person being defended, that the person making the defence had no part
therein

24. Elements of the mitigating circumstance of physical defect

Requisites of Illness:
a. Illness must diminish the exercise of the will power of the offender; and
b. Such illness should not deprive the offender of consciousness of his acts.

Requisites of Physical Defect

 It must be shown that such physical defects limited his means to act, defend himself or communicate with his fellow
beings.
 In such extent that he did not have complete freedom of action, consequently resulting in diminution of the elements of
voluntariness.

25. Mitigating circumstance of vindication/passion/voluntary surrender/plea of guilt

Requisites of Vindication of a grave offense

1. That there must be a grave offense done to the one committing the felony his spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate,
natural or adopted brother or sisters or relatives by affinity within the same degrees;
2. That the felony is committed in immediate vindication of such grave offense;
3. “Immediate” - allows a lapse of time unlike in sufficient provocation, as long as the offender is still suffering from the
mental agony brought by the offense to him.

Requisites for Passion

1. Accused acted upon an impulse;
2. The impulse must be so powerful that is naturally produced passion or obfuscation

Requisites for Obfuscation

1. That there be an act, both unlawful and sufficient to produce such condition of mind;
2. That said act which produced the obfuscation was not far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable
length of time, during which the perpetrator might recover his equinimity;
3. The act using such obfuscation was committed by the victim himself;

Note:
 The passion or obfuscation should arise from lawful sentiments in order to be mitigating
 May lawfully arise from cause existing only in the honest belief of the offender.

Requisites for Voluntary Surrender

1. That the offender had not been actually arrested;
2. That the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or ot the latter’s agent
3. That the surrender was voluntary. A surrender to be voluntary must be spontaneous, showing the intent of the accused to
submit himself unconditionally to the authorities, either because:
a. He acknowledges his guilt;
b. He wishes to save them the trouble and expense necessarily incurred in the search and capture.

Requisites Plea of Guilt

1. That the offender spontaneously confessed his guilt;
2. That the confession of guilt was made in open court, that is, before the competent court that is to try the case.
3. That the confession of guilt was made prior to the presentation of evidence for prosecution.

26. What is a privileged mitigating circumstance?

 Priveleged mitigating circumstance, is that circumstance that cannot be offset by a generic aggravating circumstance, can
decrease the penalty by a degree or two and it can be applied even if the penalty indivisible penalty.

27. Distinguish a privileged mitigating circumstance from an ordinary mitigating circumstance as to reduction of penalty
and offsetting against aggravating circumstance/s.

Page 7 of 12
 Priveleged Mitigating Circumstances Ordinary Mitigating Circumstance

 Cannot be offset by any generic aggravating  Can be offset by a generic aggravating

circumstance; circumstance;
 Can be applied even if the penalty is  Cannot be applied when the penalty is
indivisible penalty indivisible penalty;
 Can decrease the penalty by a degree or two  Can lower the penalty in its minimum
period.

28. RA 9344 on minority

 Below 15 years old – Age of absolute criminal irresponsibility
 15 years old – 18 years old (with discernment) - Can be liable but under suspended sentence.
 15 years old – 18 years old (without discernment) - Exempted from criminal liability, but undergo intervention program.

29. Effects of qualifying aggravating circumstances. Aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength

Effects of Qualifying Aggravating Circumstance:

 It changes the nature of the crime. Hence, it does not affect the penalty of the crime because it is provided by the law
itself.

Abuse of Superior Strength

 There must be evidence that the accused was/were physically stronger that the victim/s and such advantage was abused
with superiority
 This aggravating depends on the age, size, and strength of the parties.
 Abuse of superior strength is also present when the offender uses a powerful weapon which is out of proportion to the
defense available to the offended party.
 Inherently absorbed in treachery.

30. Elements of aggravating circumstance of dwelling/nightime/uninhabited place

Dwelling: It affects the sanctity of privacy the law accords to human abode. (Rationale)
 It is not necessary that the accused should have actually entered the dwelling of the victim to commit the offense.
 It is not enough that the victim was attacked inside his own abode, although the assailant might have devised means to
perpetrate the assault from the outside.

What are dwellings?

 It must be a building or structure exclusively used for rest and comfort (combination of house and store not included),
may be temporary as in the case of guests in a house or bedspacers. It includes dependencies, the foot of the staircase and
the enclosure under the house.

When is not appreciated?

 When both the offender and offended party are occupants of the same house.
o XPN: In cases of adultery
 When robbery is committed by the use of force upon things, dwelling is not aggravating because it is inherent.
 When it is inherent to the crime
 When the owner of the dwelling gave sufficient and immediate provocation
 The victim is not a dweller of the house.

Nighttime:
 When it facilitated the commission of the offense;
 The offender took advantage of the same to commit the crime.
 Nocturnity is aggravating when it is purposely
 and deliberately sought by the accused to facilitate the commission of the crime or to prevent their being recognized or to
insure unmolested escape. Nocturnidad must concur with the intent and design of the offender to capitalize on the
intrinsic impunity afforded by the darkness of night.

Uninhabited Place:
 In order that the aggravating circumstance of the commission of a crime in an uninhabited place may be considered, it is
necessary that the place of the occurrence be where there are no houses at all, a considerable distance from the village or
town, or where the houses are a great distance apart. (Decision of the supreme court of Spain, January 9, 1884.)

Page 8 of 12
- In People vs Torres, the The uninhabitedness of a place is determined not by the distance of the nearest house to the scene of the
crime, but whether or not in the place of commission, there was reasonable possibility of the victim receiving some help.
Considering that the killing was done during nighttime and the sugarcane in the field was tall enough to obstruct the view of
neighbors and passersby, there was no reasonable possibility for the victims to receive any assistance.

31. The alternative circumstance of relationship

The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be taken into consideration when the offended party is the spouse, ascendant,
descendant, legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister, or relative by affinity in the same degree of the offender.

32. Death/Injuries under exceptional circumstances

Article 247. -- Death or Physical Injuries under Exceptional Circumstances. -- Any legally married person who, having surprised
his spouse in the act of thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any serious injury, shall suffer the penalty of destierro (banishment)."

33. Requisites to be complicit as an accomplice in a crime

ARTICLE 18. Accomplices. — Accomplices are those persons who, not being included in article 17, cooperate in the execution
of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts.

34. Accessories to a crime and who are accessories exempt from criminal liability?
Article 19. Accessories. - Accessories are those who, having knowledge of the commission of the crime, and without
having participated therein, either as principals or accomplices, take part subsequent to its commission in any of the
following manners:
1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime.
2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the effects or instruments thereof, in order to prevent its
discovery.
3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principals of the crime, provided the accessory acts with
abuse of his public functions or whenever the author of the crime is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an
attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive, or is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime.

Article 20. Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability. - The penalties prescribed for accessories shall not
be imposed upon those who are such with respect to their spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural, and
adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees, with the single exception of accessories
falling within the provisions of paragraph 1 of the next preceding article.

35. Can there be a frustrated impossible crime?

No. There can be no frustrated impossible crime because the offender has already performed the acts for the
execution of the crime.
36. When are light felonies punishable?
Light felonies, according to Art 7 of the RPC are punishable "only when they have been consummated, with the
exception of those committed against persons or property." Art 16 of the RPC provides that "the following are
criminally liable for light felonies: 1. Principals 2. Accomplices
37. When is a crime deemed to have been committed by a band?
When armed men, atleast four (4) in number, take direct part in the execution of the act constituting the crime.

38. The maxim "Nullum crimen nula poena sine lege"

There is no crime, when there is no law punishing it

39. The accused was shocked to discover his wife and their driver sleeping in the master’s bedroom. Outraged, the
accused got his gun and killed both. Can the accused claim that he killed the two under exceptional circumstances?

No. The accused cannot claim that he killed the two under exceptional circumstances. According to article 247 any legal married
person who, having surprised his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person, shall kill any of them or
both of them in the act or immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any serious physical injury shall suffer the penalty of
destierro. If he shall inflict upon them physical injuries of any other kind, he shall be exempt from punishment.

In the case at bar, the accused did not catch the victims while having sexual intercourse. Hence, the defence of the accused that the
death was under exemptional circumstances is devoid of merit.

40. X inflicted violent kicks on vital parts of E's body. E nevertheless was able to flee for fear of his life. Refusing to
undergo treatment for his injuries, E died 3 days later. Is X liable for E’s death?

Page 9 of 12
Yes. A person committing a felony is criminally liable for all the natural and logical consequences resulting therefrom although
the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. The felony committed must be the proximate cause of the
resulting injury.

Proximate cause is "that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces
the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred."

In the case of the bar, the injury inflicted by X to E is the proximate cause of death. The refusal of E to undergo treatment is not an
efficient intervening cause that would break the relation of cause and effect - the felony committed and the resulting injury.
Jurisprudence dictates that the offended party is not obliged to submit to a surgical operation to relieve the accused from the
natural and ordinary results of his crime.

41. X was present at the scene of the crime and witnessed Y set a house on fire. X however, did not give alarm or report
to the authorities the acts of Y. Is X an accomplice in the crime of arson?

No. According to jurisprudence, mere passive presence at the scene of another’s a crime, mere silence, and failure to give the
alarm, without evidence of agreement or conspiracy, do not constitute the cooperation required by article 14 of the Penal Code for
complicity in the commission of the crime witnessed passively, or the regard to which one has kept silence. Because there is no
evidence of moral or material cooperation, and none of an agreement to commit the crime in question.

In the case at bar, the mere presence and silence of X, while they are simultaneous act, do not constitute cooperation, for it does
not appear that they encourage or nerved Y to commit the crime of arson, and as for her failure to give alarm, that being
subsequent act it does not make her liable as an accomplice.

42. While Pedro was welding, Juan kicked the machine Pedro was using. Pedro, who is bigger, punched and taunted
Juan in front of a lot of people. Juan was humiliated. Juan did not respond as he was physically overpowered. When
Pedro resumed working, Juan, with the use of a gun, killed Pedro. Juan was arrested and he interposed self-defense.
Is his defense valid?

No. The defense is not valid.

Jurisprudence provides that, unlawful aggression must be continuing and when it ceased to exist, there is no self-defense to talk
about. Furthermore, retaliation is present when the aggression that was begun by the injured party already ceased when the
accused attacked him.

In the case at bar, Juan the original aggressor stopped the aggression, and when Pedro made the attack, the unlawful aggression
already ceased to exist. Hence, the attack made by Pedro was clearly a retaliation to the aggression of Juan, because the agression
already ceased when the accused attacked him.

Hence, the defense of Juan is not tenable.

43. Ferdinand arrogantly threatened Fidel with the use of a gun. He even hit Fidel with it. Fidel was humiliated and
when Ferdinand already tucked his gun in his waist, Fidel grabbed a knife and stabbed Ferdinand. Fidel claims that
he is defending himself, in fact, Ferdinand injured him. Is his defense valid?

No. The defense is not valid.

Jurisprudence provides that, unlawful aggression must be continuing or imminent and when it ceased to exist, there is no self-
defense to talk about. The defense should be made simultaneous with the attack made my the deceased, or at least both acts
succeeded each other without appreciable interval of time.

In the case at bar, Ferdinand the original aggressor stopped the aggression when the gun he tucked his gun, and when Fidel made
the attack, the unlawful aggression already ceased to exist. Hence, the attack made by Fidel was clearly a retaliation to the
aggression of Ferdinand, because the agression already ceased when the accused attacked him.

Hence, the defense of Fidel is not tenable.

44. The General Manager of MIAA (a government corporation) was ordered by the President of the Philippines to
withdraw an amount to pay the debt of MIAA to PNCC (another government corporation). He was further instructed
to deliver the cash withdrawn to the office of the President thru the President’s secretary. It turned out later that the
Page 10 of 12
 cash delivered were never remitted to PNCC. The General Manager was later charged with malversation of public
funds. The General Manager invoked as a defense that they were just following an order issued by their superior. Is
the defense tenable?

Yes. The defense of the General manager is tenable. The General Manager is entitled of the justifying circumstance of
obedience to an order issued for some lawful purpose. According to Article 11 Paragraph 6, any person who acts in
obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose.

In the case at bar, the following requisites present were : 1) an order has been issued by a superior. 2. That such order
must be for some lawful purpose. 3. That the means used by the subordinate to carry out said order is lawful. Both the
person who gives the order and the person who executes it, must be acting within the limitations prescribed by law.

45. Arianne, a fourteen year old girl is fond of watching the TV program Ang Probinisyano. One evening while she was
engrossed watching her favorite TV show, Flora, their maid, changed the channel because she wanted to watch
CNN. This enraged Arianne who got her father’s gun and without warning, shot Flora at the back of her head
causing her instantaneous death. Is Arianne criminally liable?
No, Arianne is not criminally liable for killing Flora because she is just 14 years old when she committed the killing. A minor
fifteen (15) years old and below is exempt from criminal liability although not from civil liability (Art 12, par 2, RPC)

46. The accused lived with his family in a neighborhood that often was the scene of frequent robberies. At one time, past
midnight, the accused went downstairs with a loaded gun to investigate what he thought were footsteps of an
uninvited guest. After seeing what appeared to him an armed stranger looking around and out to rob the house, he
fired his gun seriously injuring the man. When the lights were turned on, the unfortunate victim turned out to be a
brother-in-law on his way to the kitchen to get some light snacks. The accused was indicted for serious physical
injuries. Should the accused, given the circumstances, be convicted or acquitted? Why?
The accused should be convicted because, even assuming the facts to be true in his belief, his act of shooting a burglar
when there is no unlawful aggression on his person is not justified. Defense of property or property right does not justify
the act of firing a gun at a burglar unless the life and limb of the accused is already in imminent and immediate danger.
Although the accused acted out of a misapprehension of the facts,he is not absolved from criminal liability.
47. Alexander, an escaped convict, ran amuck on board a Superlines Bus bound for Manila from Bicol and killed ten
(10) persons. Terrified by the incident, Carol and Benjamin who are passengers of the bus, jumped out of the
window and while lying unconscious after hitting the pavement of the road, were ran over and crushed to death by a
fast moving Desert Fox bus tailing the Superlines Bus. Can Alexander be held liable for the death of Carol and
Benjamin although he was completely unaware that the two jumped out of the bus? Explain.
Yes, Alexander can be held liable for the death of Carol and Benjamin because the felonious act of running was the proximate
cause of the victim's death. The rule is that when a person, by a felonious act, generates in the mind of another a sense of
imminent danger, prompting the latter to escape from or avoid such danger and in the process, sustains injuries or dies, the
person committing the felonious act is responsible for such injury or death (US vs Valdez, 41 Phil 1497; People vs. Apra, 27
SCRA 1037)

48. Diana, a beautiful woman in her early twenties was sleeping at the sofa of their sala when she was awakened by the
act of a man mounting her. Thinking that it was her husband Chris who returned from work, Diana continued her
sleep but allowed the man, who was actually their neighbor Clarence to have sexual intercourse with her. After
Clarence satisfied himself, he said “Salamat Diana and sarap mo” as he turned to leave. Only then did Diana realize
that the man was not her husband. Enraged, Diana got her gun and shot Clarence to death. Diana claimed defense
of honor. Should the claim be sustained?
No, Diana's claim of defense of honor should not be sustained because the aggression on her honor had ceased when she
shot the aggressor. In defense of right under par 1, Art 11 of the RPC, it is required inter alia that there be (1) unlawful
aggression, and (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it. The unlawful aggression must be
continuing when the aggressor was injured or disabled by the person making the defense. But if the aggression that was
begun by the injured or disabled party already ceased to exist when the accused attacked him, as in the case at bar, the
attack made is a retaliation, and not a defense. Par 1, Art 11 of the RPC does not govern. Hence, Diana's act of shooting
Clarence death after the sexual intercourse was finished, is not a defense of honor but an immediate vindication of a
grave offense committed against her, which is only mitigating.

49. Vicente hacked Anacleto with a bolo but the latter was able to parry it with his hand, causing upon him a two-inch
wound on his right palm. Vicente was not able to hack Anacleto further because three policemen arrived and
threatened to shoot Vicente if he did not drop his bolo. Vicente was accordingly charged by the police at the
prosecutor's office for attempted homicide. Twenty-five days later, while the preliminary investigation was in
progress, Anacleto was rushed to the hospital because of symptoms of tetanus infection on the two-inch wound
inflicted by Vicente. Anacleto died the following day. Can Vicente be eventually charged with homicide for the
death of Anacleto? Explain.
Page 11 of 12
Yes, Vicente may be charged of homicide for the death of Anacleto, unless the tetanus infection which developed twenty five
days later, was brought about by an efficient supervening cause. Vicente's felonious act of causing a two-inch wound on
Anacleto's right palm may still be regarded as the proximate cause of the latter's death because without such wound, no tetanus
infection could develop from the victim's right palm, and without such tetanus infection the victim would not have died with it.

50. BB and CC, both armed with knives, attacked FT. The victim's son, ST, upon seeing the attack, drew his gun but
was prevented from shooting the attackers by AA, who grappled with him for possession of the gun. FT died from
knife wounds. AA, BB and CC were charged with murder. In his defense, AA invoked the justifying circumstance of
avoidance of greater evil or injury, contending that by preventing ST from shooting BB and CC, he merely avoided a
greater evil. Will AA's defense prosper? Reason briefly.
No, AA's defense will not prosper because obviously there was a conspiracy among BB, CC, and AA, such that the
principle that when there is a conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all, shall govern. The act of ST, the victim's son,
appears to be a legitimate defense of relatives. Hence, justified as a defense of his father against the unlawful
aggression by BB and CC. ST's act to defend his father's life, cannot be regarded as an evil inasmuch as it is, in the
eyes of the law, a lawful act. What AA did was to stop a lawful defense, not greater evil, to allow BB and CC
achieve their criminal objective of stabbing FT.

THINGS TO BRING:

 Do not forget to use notebooks (80 pages). Buy notebooks that have no margins yet. No spiral notebooks please.

 Prepare for your best joke (Bonus). This is the most important.

World championship ng pagalingan humiwa. Ang mga contestant: Japanese, French, Pinoy.

Unang contestant, Japanese (nilabas ang katana)…

Dumaan ang langaw…
*shing!
Nahulog ang langaw, nahiwa parehong pakpak
*palakpakan ang mga tao…

Pangalawang contestant, French (nilabas ang espada)

Dumaan ang langaw…
*shing!
Nahulog ang langaw, nahiwa ang ulo
*palakpakan na may sigawan ang mga tao….

Pangatlong contestant, Pinoy (nilabas din yung espada)

Dumaan yung langaw…
*shing!
Lumilipad pa din yung langaw…

Audience: booooo! Di natamaan! Booo!

Pinoy: kuha ka ng magnifying glass, check mo, tuli na yan.

 Study well. DO NOT FORGET TO SMILE.

Study Hard But Pray Harder. God Bless You.

IGC

Page 12 of 12