1.

Pyton enclosed his farm with a fence and posted a notice “PRIVATE PROPERTY,
STRICTLY NO TRESPASSING.” John, a 16-year-old boy, ignored the prohibition and
gathered fruits inside the farm. John was on top of a mango tree when Pyton saw him.
Pyton commanded John to step down, but John refused. Pyton then got a toy gun,
which appears to be a real gun, and fired it downward as he intend to compel John to
leave. However, John got frightened by the gunshot and fell from the tree. Immediately,
Pyton brought John to the hospital, but John died from his injuries. Is Pyton criminally
liable for the death of John?
Answer:
Yes. Under the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability is incurred by a person committing
an intentional felony although the wrongful act done be different from that intended.
Here, Pyton has committed grave threat, hence, he is criminally liable even if he had not
intended the death of John.

2. Zet threatened Paolo with a toy gun and demanded from him his mobile phone.
Thinking that it was a real gun, Paolo started to run though. Zet gave a chase but
before Paolo could run farther away from the former, bystanders Jun and Shawn also
pursued Paolo as the latter was mistaken by the duo for a robber. Upon seeing this, Zet
desisted. When Jun and Shawn finally caught up with Paolo, he was mauled and beaten
to death by them. May Zet be held criminally liable for the killing of Paolo?
Answer:
No. Under the law, for a person to be criminally liable, the wrongful act caused must be
the direct, natural and logical consequence of his felonious act. Here, the death of Paolo
is not the direct, natural and logical consequence of the robbery committed by Zet but it
was due to the mauling by Jun and Shawn.

3. In the heat of anger, Rodrigo pointed a gun at Reyno. With intention to kill the latter,
Rodrigo pressed the trigger but no bullet came out of the gun. When he checked it, he
found that the trigger had jammed.
(a) For what crime is Rodrigo liable?
Answer:
Rodrigo is liable for attempted homicide. Under the RPC, there is attempted felony when
the accused commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts but does
perform all acts of execution necessary to produce the felony due to some cause or
accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. Here, Rodrigo commenced the
shooting by pointing the gun at Reyno and pressed the trigger, yet the intended killing
was not produced because of the jammed trigger.
(b) Assuming that the reason why no bullet came out was that there was no more bullet left
inside the gun, would Rodrigo still be criminally liable? Explain fully.
Answer:
Yes. The law provides that a person is criminally liable for an impossible crime if he
performs an act which would be a crime against person, were it not for the inherent
impossibility of its accomplishment. Here, the crime committed would have been
homicide were it not due to the absence of bullet in the trigger.
4. A passenger bus, loaded with some injured passengers from a collision accident in
Alabang, Muntinlupa, was apprehended in EDSA because it has no franchise and
authority to travel along the highway. The bus was then impounded and a fine of P1M
was imposed. The bus owner defended his driver arguing that he did not intend to
perpetrate the violation because of the necessity to bring the injured passengers, some
of them in critical condition, for treatment to the hospital. Decide with reasons.
Answer:
The defense of the bus owner is untenable. Under the law, criminal intent is not a
defense in crimes malum prohibitum. Here, the operation of a motor vehicle along the
highway is a violation of land transportation laws, a malum prohibitum crime, hence,
lack of intent to perpetrate the violation is not a defense.

5. Mr. T owns a 300-square meter lot located in Manila for which Transfer Certificate of
Title (TCT) No. 88888 was issued in his name. When he left for Canada in 2000, he
entrusted to his girlfriend, Ms. K, said land title for safekeeping. The latter however was
told by T in 2002 that he would no longer be coming back to the Philippines as he has
met and already married his former sweetheart, Ms. P. In 2003, K caused the
falsification of a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) where she made it appear that T
authorized her, among others, to sell the said property. In the same year, K caused the
annotation of the SPA at the dorsal part of TCT No. 88888 on file with the Registry of
Deeds. In 2006, K, by virtue of the authority supposedly vested in her under said SPA,
was able to sell the subject realty to Mr. B and for which TCT No. 99999 was
correspondingly issued, vice TCT No. 88888. When T discovered what K had done upon
his return to the Philippines in February 2021, he filed a complaint against K with the
Prosecutor’s Office for Falsification of Public Document, a crime punishable under the
Revised Penal Code by prision correccional in its medium to maximum periods. Based on
the foregoing facts, has the offense prescribed?
Answer:
Yes. Under the Revised Penal Code, prescription of crimes begins to run on the day that
the offense was discovered by the offended party, authorities or their agents. Here, the
crime of falsification of public documents was deemed discovered when the SPA was
annotated in TCT No. 88888 in 2003 as it amounted to notice to the whole world.
Hence, the crime prescribed since the penalty of prision correctional in its medium to
maximum period, 12 years in maximum, has already lapsed.