Crim Law

1. Q: Martin with a criminal intent of inflicting injuries hit Coco with an arnis. The latter was rushed by
an ambulance to the nearest hospital but unfortunately he was declared dead on arrival. May Martin
be held criminally liable for the death of Coco even if killing the latter was never his intention?
Explain.

A: Yes, of course. Martin is liable of frustrated homicide under the provisions of Revised Penal Code,
Article 249. While Article 4 paragraph 1 of the same Code substantially provides and incurs that criminal
liability as “by any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from
that which he intended”, wherefore, the Article 6 compensates that “A felony is consummated when all
the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present; and it is 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” .
Therefore, when there is consummated criminal intent and the accomplishment does not produce by
reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator which, specifically, resulted in the
destruction of life, then the act of Martin was considered criminally liable for an account of frustrated
homicide.

2. Q: With intent to kill, Julius shot Cesar using a revolver, but due to lack of precision, the bullet hit
Brutus' chest resulting in his instant death. Will Julius be held criminally liable for the death of Brutus?
Explain.

A: Yes. Julius is held criminally liable for an account of involuntary manslaughter or involuntary
homicide. In the case at bar, People vs Sia Bonkia, G.R. No. L-40173, the Supreme Court held that the
killing of a child Ang Wan by the defendant-appellant was not guilty of murder but of involuntary
homicide where the defense argued that there is no intention, designation, premeditation, or purpose
of killing but however of resulted therein is not murder. One of the essences as well of involuntary
manslaughter or homicide is that it is the result of criminal negligence or recklessness. Vehicular
homicide as charged with reckless imprudence resulting to homicide is one of the examples as well of
involuntary manslaughter.

3. Q: Mary put poison in the coffee of her ex- husband, Jerry. However, since the substance she has
mistaken for a poison is honey, Jerry did not die nor suffer any injurious effects. Will Mary sustain a
criminal liability? Explain.

A: Yes. Mary is liable for the crime “impossible crime”. In accordance to Article 4 of the Revised Penal
Code paragraph 2, to which states that criminal liabilities be incurred from “ by any person performing an
act which would be an offense against persons or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of
its accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.” Considering
the words inherent impossibility, the commission of the crime is existent in the nature of its execution;
however it is not consummated, frustrated, nor attempted due to the inadequate or ineffectual means
which resulted in its accomplished impossibility. One of the examples of the impossible crimes is the
murder of a corpse. Supposing that all elements of murder are present, still the person is already dead
then the accomplishment of the crime committed adhere inherent impossibility.

4. Q: Due to fear that his wife and children might be massacred by their captor, Ed fulfilled the order,
and robbed Palawan Union. Supposing that all the elements of robbery are present, will Ed be held
criminally liable therefor? Explain.

A: No. Ed is not criminally liable for an account of robbery due to the justifying circumstance of
intimidation out of fear that his wife and children might be massacred by their captor. In the provisions
of Revised Penal Code under Article 11, paragraph 2, which substantially provides that “any one who
acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural or
adopted brothers or sisters, or his relatives by affinity in the same degrees and those consanguinity
within the fourth civil degree, provided that the first and second requisites prescribed in the next
preceding circumstance are present, and the further requisite, in case the provocation was given by the
person attacked, that the one making defense had no part therein”, which makes the act of Ed was for
the sole purpose of the defense of the persons which is his family. Thus, in accordance to this provision
Ed is not criminally held liable.

5. Q: Eugene committed rape with homicide. In his tape recorder, he made mention of his desire to
have sexual intercourse with his classmate, Vina and kill her thereafter, as to avoid getting arrested
and imprisoned. Supposing that all the elements of rape with homicide exist, can Eugene be held
criminally liable even if he is a minor? Explain.

A: Yes. Assuming that Eugene is capable of having malicious thought in the luxury of pleasure, this would
discreetly impose that Eugene is of 15 years old above but not 18 years old below. Arguendo, Article 13
of the Revised Penal Code which refers to mitigating circumstances under paragraph 2, which states that
“that the offender is under eighteen years of age or over seventy years. In the case of the minor, he shall
be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of article 80”. Since Article 80 provides for the
suspension of minor delinquents, there are another form of proceedings intended for these mitigating
circumstances. Thus, even if the Eugene is still a minor, the former is still can be held of criminal
liabilities. Though the proceedings is not the same to those ages 18 and above, still Eugene can be
condemned by the competent court guilty if the evidences warrants so.