Wala akong nakuhang tanong dito (About ata sa police na may binaril yung sa C, yung sa D need daw ng

mitigating circumstance) – 5 points C, 0 points D

1.) C. No, there is no self-defense. The principal element of the self-defense which is unlawful
aggression is absent. There is no act that constitute to unlawful aggression as the gun is just
lucked in X’s waist. They are just having altercation with each other. The second element is
automatically absent since there is no unlawful aggression to avoid or repel. Although the third
element may be present since there is no provocation on the part of the accused, it will be
immaterial since the principal element, unlawful aggression is absent.

No, there is no fulfillment of duty. B, the police officer, is not exercising his duties at that time
since he is in the pub for leisure purposes. This element is absent. The second element is also
absent. The said act of B is not unavoidable consequence because when X is about to pull
something in his waist, believing it as a gun, B should not immediately fire at him. He must be
prudent enough to assess the act since he is the one who approached X. X was just puling his ID
and license to justify why he has a gun.

No, there is no mistake of fact. Mistake of fact is a misapprehension of fact known to the offender
and produces injury to another. Not all the elements are present. First the act done be justifiable
when the facts known and believed by the offender is applied. This element is present since if it is
a gun, then he is doing a lawful act. Second, the intent is lawful. This is present since if X is
pulling a gun then B must defend himself. However, the third element is absent since the act done
is with negligence and carelessness. B approached X to check him. X is about to get his ID and
permit but yet B shot him. B acted unprudently so there is carelessness. Hence there is no mistake
of fact.

D. I will convict him with no modifying circumstances. In self-defense, unlawful aggression is

absent. This element is necessary in order to mitigate it even there is no sufficient provocation in
his part, one element of self-defense. An elements of fulfillment of duty is absent so, likewise, no
modifying circumstance will be given.

Wala rin ako nakuha dito na tanong sorry infer nalang tayo sa sagot (about ata sa iniwan na bride sa kasal
kaya namatay from running in the street, B ata is about someone na nabangga) - 3 points D, 5 points B

2.) D. No, B is not criminally liable on the death of A. The relative invoking the first paragraph of
Article 4, known as proximate cause doctrine, is absent. The elements are the following. First, the
intended act is a felonious act. This is absent since the act of B telling that he cannot marry A is
not a felonious act. Second element is the resulting act is a felonious act. This is present since she
was hit by the car of C. Third, it must be a direct, logical and natural consequence of the act of B.
This may be present since the act of B telling A that she cannot marry her in from of the church
and already wearing a down made A disappointed. However, in order to apply the proximate
cause doctrine, there must be no efficient intervening cause. In this case, the act of C hitting A is
the efficient intervening cause. Hence, B is not liable.
 B. No. C cannot invoke the exempting circumstance of accident. The elements are the following.
First, he must be doing a lawful act. This is present since he is just driving within the speed limit.
Second, it must be with due care. As stated in the facts, he is driving within the allowed speed
limit. Third, the resulting act or injury must be caused by mere accident. A appeared nowhere
while C is driving with due care. Lastly, it must not be with fault or negligence. This is also
present since C is driving with due care when suddenly A appeared.

L is going to kill O. Nung sasaksakin na, di pa patay, nung sasaksakin ulit, napigilan ni T. Nung
nakipagagawan si L and T, tumilapon yung knife kay N. What are the liabilities of L and T? - 5 points A,
4 points B

3.) A. If I were the judge, I will convict L for the crime of frustrated homicide against O. All the
elements are present. First, the offender performed all the acts of execution. This is present. L was
able to launch a fatal blow to O. Second, it must produce a felony as a consequence. This is also
present since the act of giving a fatal blow is a felony. Third, but it was not produced. This is also
present since T, the cause independent to the will of the perpetrator, intervened in the scene to
stop L. Fourth element, is present since it was stopped by cause independent to the will of
perpetrator, which is the act of T.

I will not convict L for Attempted homicide against T but only physical injury. L slashed
the arms of T because T tried to snatch the balisong. It was not stated in the fact that L
tried to stab T as well since the injury acquired by T is when L is about to fire the second
blow to O and not to T. The elements of attempted homicide are absent. First, the
offender did not commences the commission of the crime against T. This requires an
external act directly to T. Again, the injury acquired by T is not directly aimed to him but
to L. Second, it does not produce a felony. Third, it was not stopped by his own
spontaneous desistance and last, the non-performance is because of some cause or
accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. Hence all elements are absent.

Lastly, L cannot be held liable to the injuries of N. The act of L has nothing to do with
the injuries inflicted to N as he is only passing by.

B. I will give T the defense of Accident. First element is present since he is acting lawfully by
performing defense of a stranger. Second, it is done with due care. He did not know that N is in
the scene as N is just passing by. Third, the injury given to N is by mere accident of throwing the
balisong when T is snatching it from L. And lastly, it is without fault or intent on the part of T
since he does not have any fault or intent to injure N which is just passing by through the scene.
Hence, T must be acquitted based on Paragraph 4 of Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code.
4 points A, 4 points B

4.) A. A is liable of attempted rape. All the elements of attempted rape is present. First, the offender
commences the commission of the crime. It is present since he took her by putting chemicals in a
cloth and when unconscious, undressed her and tried to have sexual congress. Second, but felony
was not produced since B shouted and there is no actual penetration. Third, it must be stopped not
by his own spontaneous desistance. This is present since B called the attention by the guards and
stopped A. Lastly, it was stopped by some cause or accidents other than his own spontaneous
desistance. The performance of the crime was stopped because B shouted and resisted that called
the attention of the guards. Frustrated rape cannot be invoked since the Supreme Court said that
rape can wither be Attempted or Consummated only.

B. No mitigating circumstances will be given. Although, he has physical defects, Paragraph 8 of

the Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code cannot be invoked. The defect must be connected to the
commission of the crime. It must affect his act, deeds or communication to his fellow being. A,
being deaf and mute, has nothing to do with the crime of rape he is committing. Therefore, no
mitigating circumstance shall be given.

0 points and di ko alam tanong sooo ayun lol

5.) No. Only B will be liable of Murder. In order to prove conspiracy, there must be an agreement
between two or more person to the commission and decided to commit it. However, the
conspirators, must not just be present to the commission but also contributed to the commission
of the crime. A and C, by standing in the scene of the crime, must have contributed the common
design of the crime. If there is no proven overt act of A and C to the commission od B’s crime.
Then, they are not criminally liable.

Dua bulled is attempted murder/homicide not Impossible crime – 0 points A, 5 points B

6.) A. I will convict him of impossible crime. First element, it is a crime against person. Hitting a
person with a gun, if ripened, is a crime against person. Second, it was with evil intent. Third, it is
not accomplished because of its inherent impossibility or employment of inadequate or
ineffectual means. This is present since the bullet is dud that constitute to ineffectual means.
Lastly, it does not violate any other provision of the RPC. In this case, factual impossibility is
present w/c is extraneous circumstance, unknown to the offender, that will prevent the
consummation of crime.

B. Both attempted felony and impossible crime is with evil intent. The difference is in impossible
crime, the intent cannot be accomplished because of its inherent impossibility or employment of
inadequate or ineffectual means. In attempted feleony, it can be accomplished but was not
accomplished because of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.
People v. Valenzuela – 7 points

7.) They are already liable for consummated theft. The moment they took possession of something
without violence consummates theft. It is regardless whether they returned it because spontaneous
desistance is only applicable to attempted stage but in this case it is already consummated.

The act of returning it can be a mitigating circumstance under paragraph 10 of Article 13. It can
be considered as voluntary surrendered.

In addition, by returning the goods of palay will free them from civil liability but not on criminal
liability

Self-defense of Honor – 5 points

8.) A is incorrect. The moment he saw B raping his daughter, the rape is already consummated.
There is no honor to protect sine B already penetrated her daughter. Defense of honor will not lie.

However, A can claim a mitigating circumstance under paragraph 5 of Article 13 which is

immediate vindication. First, the grave offense is consummated to his daughter. First element is
present. Second, the action of A must be immediate in nature. This is also present since the
moment he saw her daughter being raped by B, he immediately took his gun and fired it to B.

Ninakaw yung car. Para pigilan binaril yung gulong ng car tapos nag swerve then may nasagasaan – 10
points (Perfect)

9.) I will acquit C for the charge of Homicide. C’s reason of accident is present. First, his act is
lawful. He is exercising self-defense. There is unlawful aggression when P is taking C’s car. The
means employed by C is reasonable as he is only hit the rear wheel and not any person. His sole
purpose is to stop P. Lastly, there is no provocation on the part of C.

Second element of accident is it is done with due care he only shit the rear wheel. It is with due
care. Third, the felony or injury is caused by mere accident. This is present and lastly, it was no
fault or intent on the part of C as he only hit the wheel and not to kill or injure any person.

The reason why the proximate cause will not lie is because the intended act of C, by hitting the
wheel, is not felonious. Second element is present, the resulting act is a felony. Lastly, the
resulting act is a direct, natural or logical consequence of the act of C. The Third element can
arguably be accepted as present since if C did not hit the wheel of the car it will not swerve to the
tricycle driven. However, the first element is absent so proximate cause will not lie.