2.

A. No. M can not be held liable for perjury.

Under the law, perjury is committed when the statements of a person
under oath are false. That the disposition of statements are under his own free
will and voluntarines. In this case, M was forced to sign a document
containing statements prepared by someone other than M.
Hence, perjury is not committed.

B. Yes. The lawyer committed a crime of Offering False Testimony.

Under the law, Offering of False Testimony is committed when a person
offered a testimony to favor or prejudice a party’s case. That he knew that the
testimony he is offering is false.
Hence, lawyer V committed the crime of offering false testimony.

3. I will resolve to deny the complaint.

Under prevailing jurisprudence, for perjury to be committed, the
person giving the statements intended to offer falsehood. In this case, Z
executed two contradicting statements. There is no showing that he made
false statements. Jurisprudence is instructive that a mere inconsistencies are
not tantamount to falsehood.
Hence, I will resolve to deny the complaint.

4. Public officers are those by direct provision of law, occupies public

office, officers who by appointment and through popular election occupies
office.

5. Only P committed a crime.

Under the law, a crime of indirect bribery is committed when a person
offered a gift, reward or promises something to a person and expecting in
return a favor. That the offer was made to a person by reason of his office. In
this case, P, out of any reason except for a fact that he has a pending case
under the sala of J, gave a gift to J. It is a clear indicia that he expects
something in return. Meanwhile, J did not commit a crime because although
he accepted the gift, he ruled against P.
Therefore, P is the only person criminally liable.

6. No. The treasurer is not criminally liable.

A mere neglect to issue a receipt without the intent to defraud the
government is not a crime. Absent of appropriating the money collected by the
treasurer and the deliberate intent not to issue a receipt constitutes no crime.

7. The defense case holds no water.

Jurisprudence is instructive. The husband is criminally exempt from
criminal liability of killing the paramour if he was able to chance the actual
carnal knowledge of his wife and the paramour. In this case, G was not able to
see that actual momentum of having a carnal knowledge of his wife to R.
Hence, I will rule against the defense.

8. All of them shall be held liable for the death of N.

Under the law, when death eventually resulted from a tumultuous
affray and the assailant can not be determined, all participants from the affray
shall be held liable. In this, case it cannot be determined who among B,R,W
and L is the assailant that caused the death of N.
Therefore, all of them are liable for the crime of death under
tumultuous affray.

9.