I. B may be charged 2 counts of the Bouncing checks Law.

Under the Bouncing checks Law, a person drawing a check on unsufficient funds is liable for
such Special Law.

In this case B, knows full well that he drawn 2 checks wherein he should guarantee for 400,000
but only funded the account for only 50,000. For having drawn 2 checks would mean 2 counts
of the violation of bouncing checks law.

II.
a) Yes. The charge of frustrated arson is committed.

Under the Revised Penal Code; a crime is committed in the frustrated stage when all the
elements of the crime is executed but nevertheless prevented independent of the will of the
perpetrator.

In this case, the elements of arson was executed which is the intent of A to burn the house of B
and brought with him gasoline and pour it on the walls of B were it not for the intervention of
C, the caretaker, the house could have been damagely burned by A.

b.) The crime that Mr. A committed is Qualified Arson.

Under a jurisprudence, Arson is committed through the intent to burn another's property and
that the main intention is to burn but the crime is qualified and so the penalty is raised to
maximum as a consequence someone has died.

Here, Mr. A succesfully burned down Mr. B's rest house and as a consequence the caretaker
therein died. A qualified arson is then committed.

III.
a) The contentions of Mr. L are not tenable.

Under a jurisprudence, for a commentary to be fair on matters of public interest, it must be

based on facts if it didnt pass the truth scale.

IMPUTATION – PUBLIC PERSON – PUBLIC CAPACITY

In this case, Mr. L commentaries was merely based from private citizens who's identity is not
even verified and that his commentaries is not supported by factual circumstances.

b.) The effect on the criminal liability on the accused for publishing a libelous remark on online
is that the complaint can be lodged as the same as libel as it is published in newspaper of where
is the business address of newspaper, residence of the accused or the complainant.
IV.
a.) If the necklace was proven to be owned by Rica, she will be acquitted.

Under the Revised penal code, theft is committed by unlawfully taking someone's property with
intent to gain.

Here, the other element of intent to gain is lacking. Hence, she should be acquitted of the crime
of theft.

b.) If it is proven that store acquired from another person who was the real owner of the
necklace. Her verdict is theft.

Under the Revised Penal Code, Theft is done by unlawfully taking a property with intent to gain.

Real property – occupation of real property or usurpation of real rights; personal property –
theft

Here, Rica without ascertaining if the necklace is really hers unlawfully took the property and
the intent to gain can be inferred when the court finds out that it was not hers.

V.
a.) The crime committed by Robert and Romy is conspiracy to commit crime.

Under the Revised Penal Code, conspiracy to commit a crime is done by agreeing expressly or
impliedly to commit a crime. The perpetrators are principal by inducement, principal by
participation and principal by indespensible cooperation.

Furthermore, A rape is committed among others by having a carnal knowledge with a minor
with or without her consent.

In this case, Robert and Romy committed a crime of conspiracy to rape. Robert is the principal
by inducement who induces Romy through a reward to find someone he can have carnal
knowledge with and Romy acceeded to be a principal by direct participation when he agreed to
find an 8 year old girl for Robert to have carnal knowledge with.

b.)The crime committed is the same. If the girl is a 15 year old lass who enticed through cunning
and deceit by Romy to voluntarily go to the house of Robert where the latter subsequently have
a carnal knowledge with her.

The Revised Penal Code has already provided that rape is committed among others to a minor
with or without her consent.

Under the Law, a person is considered to be a minor when he or she is 18 years old and below.
In this case despite the 15 year old lass is the one that entered the house of Robert. Still it was
rape because the girl is still a minor for being 15 years old.
VI. The criminal liability of the members of the group is Usurpation.

Under the Revised Penal Code, Usurpation is committed when a person took over someone's
property without any authority therein.

Here, the group took over the property and destroyed their padlocks and live therein without
authority. Hence, liable for Usurpation.

VII.
a.) The action for adultery will prosper because the marriage bond is not cessated.

Under the Revised Penal Code, adultery is committed by a married woman who shall have
carnal knowledge other than her husband.

In this case, although they have had a notarial agreement that they can choose other partner,
still it is not recognized under the law because marriage is a special contract that cannot be
dissolved by mere agreement even if notarized.

b.) No, the action for frustrated parricide and homicide will not prosper because this case falls
under an exempting circumstances.

Under the Revised Penal Code, when a spouse is caught by his or her lawfully wedded spouse in
the middle of sexual intercourse, the spouse is exempted from criminal liability for the acts he
may have committed against the spouse.

Here, Rachel was caught in the act of sexual intercourse with her paramour and the subsequent
act of Roco of shooting them is absolved under the Revised Penal Code.

VIII.
Lisa committed the impossible crime of estafa in its minimum penalty.

Under the Revised Penal Code, impossible crime is committed when a crime is consummated
where it not for its inherent impossibility and the penalty is the minimum of the prescribed
inherent crime.

Here, Lisa instead of remitting the check to YG Insurance, being its agent, abused her authority
and instead deposited the check to her husband's account, where it not for the inherent
impossibility of consummating the crime of estafa because the check was dishonored for having
drawn from a closed account. The penalty is the minimum of arresto mayor.

IX. None of them is liable for cyberlibel.

Under a jurisprudence, a crime of cyberlibel having the same elements as libel is committed
when tarnishing a person's name dead or alive in public. But when such publication is found in
truth and against a public figure; such is no longer under the ambit of cyberlibel but under
freedom of speech and fair commentary.

Here, the incumbent mayor for taking the public position is already considered as public figure
where his popularity and life is under the public eye, he can be considered as public property
which people may talk about under fair comments and freedom of speech.

Also, the post of Bern is under a colorable truth since he is merely stating a pending corruption
case filed in Sandiganbayan and Czarina, Donnabel and Justine were merely reacting on a public
figure and expressing their own views.

X. No. Becuase this is a compound crime (Art. 48).

Under the Revised Penal Code, a compound crime is committed under one impulse although
different crimes is committed as a consequence thereof.

Here, the two crimes filed by prosecutor is under one single impulse, Hence it should not be
separated but compounded with each other such as Reckless imprudence resulting to homicide
and damage to properties. The injuries is absorbed in the compound crime and the penalty will
be on its maximum.

Art. 48 – only applies to INTENT.

Art. 365 – applies to NEGLIGENCE