I. a. No, Juans application for probation will be denied.

Under the probation law, one of the grounds for disqualification is when the sentence imposed has
a maximum period of more than 6 years. In this case, the maximum of the sentence exceeds 6
years.

Juans application must be denied.

b. Yes, Juans application may be granted.

The Colinares Doctrine provides that while as a general rule, an appeal will foreclose an
application for probation, such is not the case when the appeal was resorted to in order for the
judgement to be modified in such a way that the sentence will now be within the coverage of the
probation law. Since the appellate court downgraded the offense to less than 6 years, the
application may now be granted.

II.

III. Yes, Patty is criminally and civilly liable.

The RPC provides certain instances when relationship can be an exempting circumstance for theft.
However, the relationship of mother-in-law and daughter in law is not one of the relationships
provided in the law.

Patty is therefore liable criminally and civilly.

IV. No, the conviction of Pedro is not proper.

The RPC as well as the Supreme Court in a number of cases have stated that one of the requisites
for the crime of estafa by conversion is that there must be juridical possession, not only material
possession.

Here, Pedro is only a messenger and only had material possession of the money. He should
instead be convicted of qualified theft.

V. Pandoy committed theft.

Under the RPC, the elements of theft are unlawful taking with intent to gain of property that does
not belong to you.

The elements are present in this case because Pandoy knew that the money did not belong to him
yet he withdrew it and deposited it in another account.

Abet is an accessory to the crime of theft.

He provided assistance as to the concealment of the crime.

VI. Peter is liable for robbery through violence & intimidation. Peter could not have committed
kidnapping w/ ransom as Petra was already dead and therefore could not be deprived of liberty.

Under the RPC, robbery through force and intimidation can be committed when a reasonable fear
was the reason for the victim to part with his/her property. In this case, the act of Peter texting
Maria can be construed as a form of intimidation.

John is not guilty of any crime.

VII. No, Peter may not invoke the absolutory cause.

Under the RPC, one of the elements of this absolutory cause is that the sexual intercourse was
discovered in the act. In this case, one month has already passed therefore such absolutory cause
is unavailing for Peter.

VIII. Yes, Zet may be held criminally liable.

Under the RPC, a person is responsible for the possible/ consequences of his criminal act even if it
was not what he intended. In this case, the threat with the toy gun was the proximate cause for
Paolos running away which ultimately caused his death.

Zet will be liable. However, praeter intentionem may be appreciate in his favour.

IX. No, Natty should not be convicted of such crime and should be convicted under the bouncing
checks law.

Estafa under the RPC required criminal intent to cause damage to another. In this case, it is not
proven beyond reasonable doubt that Natty had such intent.

BPZZ however, being malum prohibitum does not require such intent. She can therefore be
convicted under this law.

X. I would advise the sisters that a possible remedy would be to have the judgement annulled for
being void.

Tatiana could not have filed a case for adultery as the person who had personality to file a criminal
case for adultery was the husband of Ivana. Therefore, the information was void as adultery,
according to the RPC is a private crime and can only be instituted by the offended party.

This being the case, a judgement based on a void information is also void.

XI. The crime of murder was committed.

Under the RPC, treachery qualifies a killing to murder. In a case, the SC has said that while
treachery was not present at the start of the altercation, what is material is that treachery was
attendant during the fatal blow. In the case, Rod had already ceased his attack and was in fact
begging for mercy. He had no way of defending himself when he was shot therefore, treachery was
present and Marvel committed murder.

Frank is liable as principal by inducement as he facilitated the mean by w/c the crime was
committed.

Butch is not liable for any crime.

Jose is liable as an accessory as he benefited from the crime.

XII. a. No, the motion to suspend proceedings should not be granted.

Donalds argument is without merit. There is no prejudicial question because before a person can
remarry, he must obtain a judgement that his first marriage is annulled or that is a nullity. Before
such judgement, he is still considered married in the eyes of the law. Therefore, the motion to
suspend proceedings should not be granted.

b. Yes, he may still be convicted of Bigamy because as provided in a case, any marriage
contracted without a previous declaration of nullity of the first marriage is bigamous.