CRIMINAL LAW 1994-2006

1. Crimes mala in se are inherently wrong, while crimes mala prohibita are not
inherently wrong but are prohibited by law.

In crimes mala in se, modifying circumstances, degree of participation of the offender

in committing the crime and the stage of accomplishment of the crime are taken into
account in imposing the proper penalty. In crimes mala prohibita, modifying
circumstances are not taken into account in determining the penalty to be imposed
unless the special law punishing it adopts the technical nomenclature of the penalties
under the RPC. Also, in crimes mala prohibita, the degree of participation and stage of
execution are not taken into account in imposing the proper penalty.

Crimes mala in se are generally punishable by the RPC, while crimes mala prohibita
are generally punishable by special laws.

2. No, Abe may not be prosecuted for bigamy.

Under the principle of territoriality, penal laws are enforceable only for crimes
committed within the territory of the Philippines, unless in cases provided under Art. 2
of the RPC where it may be enforced even if the crime is committed outside of
Philippine jurisdiction. In this case, the bigamous marriage was contracted outside the
Philippines and it is not one of the cases where Philippine penal laws may be effected
even outside its jurisdiction. Therefore, Abe cannot be prosecuted for bigamy under
Philippine laws.
3. Yes, I will grant the motion to quash.

Under the principle of territoriality, penal laws are enforceable only for crimes
committed within the territory of the Philippines except for instances as provided
under Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code. In this case, the crime was committed on
the high seas while sailing in the South Chine Seas. Also, the fact that the vessel was
owned by a Filipino citizen is immaterial, since it was registered under the laws of
Panama. It is the registration of the ship in accordance with Philippine laws that
makes a vessel a Philippine nationality. Therefore, the crime not being committed
while on Philippine territory nor committed on board a Philippine vessel, the court has
no jurisdiction to try the case.

Therefore, the motion to quash the information on the ground of lack o f jurisdiction
should be granted.

4. A. No, the case will not prosper.

Under the principle of territoriality, penal laws shall be enforceable only for crimes
committed within the territory of the Philippines except in cases provided under
Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code, where penal laws may be enforced for crimes
committed outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines. In this case, the
bigamous marriage was not contracted within the Philippine territory nor such case
falls under the exceptions provided under Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code.
Therefore, the case filed by Eunice for bigamy will not prosper.

B. Yes, my answer will be the same.

The consent of Eunice is immaterial for the success of the prosecution of the case
against Hubert. In this case, the crime was committed outside the territory of the
Philippines and it does not fall under the exceptions provided under Article 2 of the
Revised Penal Code for the extra-territorial application of penal laws of the
Philippines.
5. A. For the death of G, only A shall be held liable.

Under the law, when conspiracy has been established, as in this case, the act of one is
the act of all and all those who conspired and participated in the commission of the
felony, shall be equally liable, regardless of the quality and quantity of their
participation in furtherance of the conspiracy. However, if during the commission of a
felony, a third person was unexpectedly killed by one of the co-conspirators, such co-
conspirator shall be liable for the unexpected killing of the third person and the other
co-conspirators shall be liable only for the crime they intended to commit.

Therefore, since it was A who unexpectedly killed G, A alone shall be liable for his
death.

B. A, B and C shall be liable for the physical injuries inflicted upon F.

Under the law, in case where conspiracy has been established, all those who
conspired and participated in the commission of the felony shall be equally liable,
regardless of the quality and quantity of their participation in furtherance of the
conspiracy. The act of one being the act of all. In this case, since they participated
directly or indirectly in the conspiracy to commit the felony, they shall all be equally
liable.

C. As to D, he shall not be held liable as a co-conspirator.

Under the law, for a conspirator to be able to exempt himself from liability, he should
have desisted or detached himself in performing any overt act in furtherance of the
conspiracy. Here, D had desisted from the commission of the felony by fleeing the
scene before its commission. Therefore, D cannot be held liable.

D. As to E, he cannot be held liable as he did not participate in conspiring to commit a

felony against F nor had knowledge thereof.

6. Arturo shall not be criminally liable.

Under the law, for a person to be collectively liable for conspiracy to commit a felony,
he must have performed any over act which may directly or indirectly contribute in
furtherance of the conspiracy. Here, the fact that Arturo was apprehended before the
felony was committed, he is deemed not to have performed any act in furtherance of
 the conspiracy which he and Juan sought to commit. Therefore, there being no overt
act performed by Arturo, he cannot be held liable for the crime committed against
Joel.

7. Yes, there is conspiracy in this case.

Under the law, conspiracy need not always be proved by direct evidence. It may be
deduced from the mode and manner of perpetuating the offense and from the acts of
the accused pointing to a common design or purpose and their concerted actions. In
this case, the hitting of the rock by Johnny upon Dino and the sudden attack and
stabbing of the other accused is sufficient to conclude that there was indeed a
conspiracy among them to cause injury to Raffy and Dino.

8. Jose, Domingo and Manolo committed the crime of Robbery.

Under the law, robbery is committed when any person, with intent to gain, takes
personal property belonging to another by means of violence against or intimidation
of persons or by means of force upon things. In this case, there is an intention to take
personal the personal properties of Danilo by means of violence against or
intimidation of persons since they were armed with bolos while ransacking the house
of Danilo.

However, Fernando shall be liable for the crime of robbery with rape. Since rape was
committed by Fernando by reason of or on occasion of the robbery. In such case,
although all the accused had conspired to commit robbery, the rape was perpetrated
by Fernando without the knowledge of the other accused. Therefore, only he can be
liable for the crime of robbery with rape.

9. A shall be liable for the crime of robbery with homicide.

Robbery with homicide is committed when by reason of or on occasion of robbery,

homicide was committed. The intent to rob must precede the killing, whether the
killing should occur before, during or after the robbery. In this case, it is stated from
the facts that there is an intent to rob the store of C as A and B had planned the
sequence of their attack as to how to commit the crime.

However, with respect to B, he cannot be held liable for the crime of robbery with
homicide. Under the law, mere knowledge, acquiescence or approval absent any proof
 showing that a person had performed acts which may directly or indirectly contribute
in furtherance of the conspiracy is not sufficient to hold him as a conspirator for the
crime intended to be committed. In this case, B had not performed any act in
furtherance of their conspiracy in the commission of the intended felony as he had
fled the scene upon hearing the siren of the police car.

Therefore, B cannot be held liable for the crime of robbery with homicide.

10. Implied conspiracy means that conspiracy need not always be proved by direct
evidence. It may be deduced from the mode and manner of how the crime was
perpetuated and from the acts of the accused pointing to a common design or
purpose and by their concerted efforts.

The following are the legal effects of implied conspiracy:

a. Mere presence at the scene of the crime is not sufficient to consider one as a
conspirator, absent any showing that he performed overt acts in furtherance of
the conspiracy
b. Mere knowledge, acquiescence, approval to commit a crime is not sufficient to
consider a person as a conspirator absent any overt act which directly or indirectly
contributes in furtherance of the conspiracy.

11. Yes, Ricky is criminally liable.

In this case, Ricky is criminally liable as a principal by inducement for the killing of the
policemen. Under the law, a conspirator as principal by inducement need not perform
any act in furtherance of the conspiracy. The inducement shall be the determining
cause for the commission of the offense. In this case, Ricky is deemed as the
mastermind for the killing as he pointed out who among the policemen shall be
liquidated. Therefore, Ricky shall be considered as a principal by inducement for the
murder of the policemen.

12. Yes, A, B, C and D shall be liable for the crime of destructive arson.

Under the law, when a person commits an act constituting as an impossible crime and
another act, he shall be prosecuted for the latter. In this case, the accused had
committed the impossible crime of murder by firing upon the room of X who was not
present therein and thereafter, threw a grenade on the room. However, pursuant to
 the law, the accused shall be prosecuted for destructive arson if it caused the burning
of the room of X and resulting to its total destruction.

13. Impossible crime is an act which would otherwise be an offense against persons or
property were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or
employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.

It is not a crime per se but the law seeks to punish the act due to the criminal
tendency of the perpetrator.

14. OZ shall be held liable for the impossible crime of murder.

Under the law, there is an impossible crime when the act would otherwise be an
offense against persons or property were it not for the inherent impossibility of its
accomplishment or the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means. In this case,
the pouring of the substance believing it was arsenic for the purpose of killing YO but
turned out to be Equal constitutes as an impossible crime of murder. It was
considered as an impossible crime since it would have been a crime of murder, were it
not for the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.

15. I will decide to set aside the conviction for attempted murder and render a judgment
of impossible crime of murder.

Under the law, although both an attempted felony and impossible crime did not
produce the crime, the difference lies in the external cause which prevented the
commission of the offense. In an attempted felony, the external cause which
prevented the commission of the felony was due to a cause other the accused’s own
spontaneous desistance. In an impossible crime, the external cause which prevented
the commission of the felony was due to its inherent impossibility or employment of
inadequate or ineffectual means. In the case at bar, all the accused failed to
consummate the crime not because of their own spontaneous desistance but due to
the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment since Elsa was not present at her
room when the felony was committed.

16. A. Jerry and Buddy committed an impossible crime of murder.

 Under the law, an impossible crime is an act which would otherwise be an offense
against persons or property were it not for the inherent impossibility of its
accomplishment or employment of inadequate or ineffectual means. In this case,
there is an intent to kill Jun by placing a poison upon the food of Jun, but due to the
employment of inadequate or ineffectual means, that it was in fact milk that they put,
the felony was not committed.

Therefore, there being an act which would otherwise constitute as murder were it not
for the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means, Jerry and Buddy shall be held
liable for the impossible crime of murder.

B. In case Jun should be hospitalized for 10 days due to severe allergy caused by
the powdered milk, Jerry and Buddy shall be liable for the crime of less serious
physical injuries.

17. The prosecutor is incorrect.

Under the law, an impossible crime is an act which would otherwise be an offense
against persons or property were it not for the inherent impossibility of its
accomplishment or employment of inadequate or ineffectual means. In this case, it is
improper to charge Enrique with impossible crime to commit kidnapping since it is a
crime against personal security. Therefore, the prosecutor is incorrect.

18. Charlie committed the impossible crime of murder.

Under the law, an impossible crime is an act which would otherwise be an offense
against persons or property were it not for the inherent impossibility of its
accomplishment or on account of employment of ineffectual or inadequate means. In
this case, there is an intent on the part of Charlie to kill Brad by mixing what he
thought was poison but turned out to be a non-toxic powder. The crime of murder
would have been murder were it not for the employment of ineffectual or inadequate
means.

19. Yes, Felipe’s defense will prosper.

Under the law, criminal liability shall be incurred by a person committing a felony
although the wrongful act done be different from that which was intended. As such, it
is required that a person must be committing an intentional felony before he may be
 held liable for the direct, natural and logical consequence thereof. In this case, Felipe
was actually not committing an intentional felony as he was merely playing a practical
joke upon Cezar.

Thus, he cannot be made liable for the natural, logical and direct consequence
thereof.

20. Yes, Gaston is criminally liable.

Under the law, criminal liability shall be incurred by a person committing a felony
although the wrongful act done be different from that which was intended. As such,
when a person committing a felony creates a sense of danger in the mind of another
and causing the latter to escape and in doing so, he or she injures himself or herself,
the person who created such sense of danger shall be liable for the resulting death or
injuries. In this case, Gaston, in deciding to scare Belle, had created a sense of danger
in the mind of the latter which caused her to escape and in doing so, resulted in her
death, Gaston shall be liable for the natural, logical and direct consequence of his
actions.

21. B is guilty of parricide.

Under the law, when the physical injuries inflicted was the efficient cause of death,
had accelerated the death or is the proximate cause of the death of the victim, the
accused shall be liable for the resulting death. In this case, the fact that the physical
injuries inflicted by B to A who was then suffering from a lingering heart ailment, had
accelerated the death of the latter, thus, B shall be liable for the death of A.

As provided under the law, criminal liability shall be incurred by a person committing a
felony although the wrongful act done be different from that which is intended. In this
case, the infliction of physical injuries by B to A is an intentional felony and he shall be
liable for the direct, natural and logical consequence thereof.

22. Yes, Rustom is criminally liable for the death of the baby.

In this case, the pulling by Rustom of the hands of Olive caused the latter to fall over
the child causing the death of the latter. As provided under the RPC, a person
committing a felony shall incur criminal liability although the wrongful act done be
different from that which is intended. In such case, Rustom shall be liable for the
natural, logical and direct consequence of the felony he committed.
23. Yes, A can he held criminally liable for the death of B.

Under the law, criminal liability shall be incurred by a person committing a felony
although the wrongful act done be different from that which is intended. As such,
when a person committing a felony created a sense of danger in the mind of another
and the latter tried to escaped and in so doing, he or she died or was injured, the
person who created such sense of danger shall be liable for the resulting death or
injury. In this case, the act of A prompted B to think that he was immediate peril and
thus the latter threw himself into the water and immediately periled.

Thus, A shall be liable for the resulting death of B.

24. No, I will not sustain the defense.

As provided under the law, criminal liability shall be incurred by a person committing a
felony although the wrongful act done be different from that which is intended. In
such case, he shall be liable for the natural, logical and direct consequence thereof. In
this case, the accused was committing a robbery when he fired a his gun upward to
the ceiling and without knowing, had killed the owner.

Thus, a felony was being committed when he fired his gun, as such, he shall be liable
for any direct, natural and logical consequence thereof. Hence, the accused shall be
held liable for the killing of the owner of the house.

25. Yes, Luis is liable for the death of the three passengers.

Under the law, when a person committing a felony, created a sense of danger in the
mind of another causing the latter to escape and in doing so, dies or injures himself,
the person who created such sense of danger shall be liable for the resulting death or
injury.
In this case, the act of Luis in running amuck and stabbing other passengers and
created a sense of danger in the mind of the three passengers which prompted them
to jump out of the moving train which cause their death. Thus, Luis shall be liable for
the natural, logical and direct consequence of his actions.

Therefore, Luis shall be liable for their deaths.