PEREZ, JOSE IGNATIUS D.

– 1A1 27 OCTOBER 2020

MIDTERM EXAM IN CRIMINAL LAW 1 JUSTICE EFREN DELA CRUZ

Answers:

1. a) Adela should be advised that she can sue Arnold and Andrea for crime of Bigamy
for their marriage is still subsisting under Philippine Law for a divorce acquired by a
Filipino Citizen abroad is not valid in the Philippines. This means that Arnold and
Andrea are liable for Bigamy as they married while the other party is still married to
another. b) If they returned to the Philippines and rented a condo unit where they lived
as husband and wife, the advice should be to file for Concubinage for Arnold and
Andrea are cohabiting as husband and wife without legal marriage as their marriage is
void ab initio.

2. Bart did not incur criminal liability because what Bart did was in the scope of the
Justifying Circumstances of Article 11(1) of the Revised Penal Code. Considering that
he was in an isolated dark road and no provocation was given by him, Bart’s intent was
lawful that he was in defense of his person and in his perception that there is an
unlawful aggression towards him which imperils his life; he took the reasonable
necessary means to repel and prevent it.

3. Cardo may be held criminally liable for an Impossible Crime. In this case all the
requisites of an impossible crime are present. The act performed with the intent to gain
would have been an offense against property was it not for the inherent impossibility of
the accomplishment of the act as a person cannot steal his own property and his act did
not constitute a violation of a provision in the Revised Penal Code.

4. SPO1 Donato should be advised that there is no charge that can be filed against Deo
and Dan for what they did under Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code is a proposal and
conspiracy to commit a felony and it is well settled that mere conspiracy and proposal to
commit a felony are not punishable because those acts are only considered to be
preparatory acts and the law regards them as innocent and permissible acts. Unless
Deo and Dan perform an overt act which can be attributed to be an act of furtherance of
their malevolent design and that the tranquility of the State is disturbed by it.

5. Ernie may be held criminally liable for the crime of Frustrated Parricide. Ernie may be
held criminally liable for the crime of Frustrated Parricide because in relation to Article 6
of the Revised Penal Code he performed all the acts of execution and all his acts would
produce the felony as a consequence but the felony was not produced for reasons of
causes independent from his will which in this case is the development of a strong
resistance to toxic substance of his wife.

6. This case shall be decided as consummated theft because with intent to gain, Fermin
was able to acquire physical possession of the stolen maong pants for a considerable
amount of time.

7. Greg’s act is provided for under Article 11(2) which states that “Any person in the
defense of his relatives by affinity or consanguinity up to the fourth civil degree shall not
incur any criminal liability and in case that the provocation was given by the one being
attacked, the one defending has no part therein. A brother-in-law is Greg’s relative by
affinity that is within said requirement. Another fact is that Greg acted under the impulse
of his human nature to protect a family member from danger and that he was in good
faith as when he came out of his house from his afternoon nap what he saw was that
Gardo armed with a bolo chasing Gario a relative of his and in order to be able to stop
such danger to his relative he can only resort to the weapon that he has in hand which
is the nearest to him.

8. Under Article 12, Harold did not incur any criminal liability as it is stated in one of the
Absolutory Causes that in relation to Article 6 with spontaneous desistance, one does
not incur criminal liability due to public sentiment or public policy.

9. The charge of frustrated robbery against Inggo was not the correct charge. Just like
in the case of People v. Lamahang, this is an indeterminate offense wherein the
purpose of the offender is not certain. Once Inggo is successful in entering the house of
Dr. Inoke he may be there to do a something different than what was alleged.

10. Under Ariticle 8 of the Revised Penal Code, Jose is also criminally liable and his
contention is untenable because it is him who induced Jepoy to do the robbery and
according to said Article, the act of one is the act of all.

11. a) Korbo may invoke Art. 12 of the Revised Penal Code to free himself from criminal
liability that that he was induced by Police Officer to do such act thus he shall be
acquitted.

11. b) Kaokao may not adop Korbo’s defense as he was the target of the entrapment
operation and he did the crime with his own volition and voluntariness.

II. Distinguish

1. Crimes Mala In Se are punished by the Revised Penal Code, are generally
wrongful by reason of their nature and intent is essential therein. While in Crimes
Mala Prohibita, they are punished by special laws, are not necessarily wrongful
by nature but made only wrongful by law and intent is not essential what is only
 needed is for the act to be committed voluntarily. In case of crimes punishable by
Special Laws but are in their nature wrongful it is considered to be Crimes Mala
In Se.

2. In justifying circumstances there is no crime committed as such act is lawful and

did not transgress any law that is why there is no criminal liability while in
exempting circumstances there is a crime committed but no criminal liability
arises from it as there is absence of conditions of free will, intelligence,
voluntariness, and intent.
3. Under Article 2 in the English Rule, crimes are triable in the country where they
are unless crimes affect merely internal management of the vessel. In French
Rule crimes are not subject to the jurisdiction of the country wherein vessel is
located unless such undermines peace and security.
4. Mistake of fact requires that the act would have been lawful if it was how the
accused believed it to be, that there be lawful intent, and that there be no fault or
negligence on the part of the accused and with this the accused shall be
acquitted. While in mistake of identity criminal liability is incurred if a person even
though not the target of his ire or felonious act inflict injury to another.