2024 BAR EXAMINATIONS. CRIMINAL LAW BAR SS AND ANSWERS (ALAC METHOD) 1. In 2019, government-sponsored militias in Sudan known as “Janjaweed” conducted a campaign of slaughter, starvation, rape, and kidnapping of a certain racial and ethnic group. An estimated 1,000,000 people were gystematically killed and 300,000 families have been displaced. In August 2024, Maverick, a known leader of Janjaweed, was spotted in Boracay. Maverick was criminally charged for the widespread and systematic attacks directed against the civilian population ‘The Regional Trial Court (RTC) then issued @ warrant of arrest. Maverick challenged the jurisdiction of the RTC to prosecute the offense since none of his actions was committed in the Philippines,and none of the alleged victims is a Can Maverick SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, Maverick cannot be prosecuted in the Philippines. Under the tegtitoriality principle, the provisions)ofythe RPC shall be enforced within the Philippine archipelago. Further, under the generality principle, the penal laws of the Philippines shall Bélbinding upon all who live or sojourn in the Philippine territory. Here, Maverick and the membergiof Janjaweed committed the acts in Sudan and. not in the Philippines. Thus, Maverick cannot be prosecuted in the Philippines. He must be prosecuted in Sudan. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Yes, MavericRican be prosecuted in the Philippines. Under RA No. 9851, “genocide” means any of the following, acts with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, religious, social or any other similar stable and permanent group as such: a) Killing members of the group; b) ing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. It shall be unlawful for any person to directly and publicly incite others to ATTY. ANSELMO S, RODIEL IV 1commit genocide, Further, the State shall exercise jurisdiction over persons, whether military or civilian, suspected or accused of a crime defined and penalized in this Act, regardless of where the crime is committed, provided, any one of the following conditions is met: a) The accused is a Filipino citizen; b) The accused, regardless of citizenship or residence, is present in the Philippines; or c) ‘The accused has committed the said crime against a Filipino citizen Here, Maverick and the members of Janjaweed committed genocide against a certain racial and ethnic group in Sudan. Since he was in’Boracay, he can be arrested and be prosecuted in the Philippines. Bruno, 17 years old and a first-time offender, was charged with and convicted of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. In the imposition of the penalty, the trial court appreciated the privilegedsmitigating ¢ircumstance of minority in favor of Bruno and sentenced him with the indeterminate penalty of seven years of prision mayor, as minimum, to” years, eight months andbone day ofifeclusion temporal, as maximum. Thereafter Bruno applied for probation invoking Section 70 of Republic Act No. 9165 which entitles first-time minor offenders to probation “even if the sentence provided under this Aét is higher than that provided under existing law on probatiéfi.” However, the trial court ruled that’Brun gible for probation following Section 24 of Republic Act No. 9165 which provides that “[a}ny person convicted for drug trafficking or pushing under this Act, regardless of the penalty, ‘i by the court, cannot avail othe privilege granted by the Probation Law... SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, Bruho is not eligible for probation Under RA Nog9165, any person convicted for drug trafficking or pushing under this Act, regardless of thé penalty imposed by the Court, cannot avail of the privilege granted by the Probation Law or Presidential Decree No. 968, as amended. Further, case law dictates that the law is clear and leaves no room for interpretation. Any person convicted for drug trafficking or pushing, regardless of the penalty imposed, cannot avail of the privilege granted by the Probation Law or P.D, No, 968. The elementary rule in statutory construction is that when the words and phrases of the statute are clear and unequivocal, their meaning must be determined from the language employed and the statute must be taken to mean exactly what it says. Ifa statute is clear, plain and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation. This is what is known as the plain-meaning rule or verba legis. It is expressed in the ATTY. ANSELMO S. RODIEL IVmaxim, index animi sermo, or speech is the index of intention. Furthermore, there is the maxim verba legis non est recedendum, or from the words of a statute there should be no departure. Thus, Bruno is ineligible for probation. . Olivia went to the office of Louis after learning that he was giving out franchises to operate public utility vehicles. Louis told Olivia that sheican have a certificate of public convenience within a month for PHP 30,000.00, Olivia delivered to Louis the full payment. Thereafter, Louis falsified the franchise certificate and handed it to Olivia. Later, Olivia discovered that the franchise was fake. Louis was charged with and convicted of complex crime of estafa/ through falsification of public SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, the trial court did not properly convict Louis of the complex crime. Under the Revised Penal Code, when a single act constitutes two or more crimes, or when an offenses a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious¢rime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period. Further, the following are the elements ofvestafa by means of deceit: (a) that there must be a false pretense or fraudulent representation as to his power, influence, qualifications», property, “eredit, agency, business or imaginary transactions; (b) that such false pretense or fraudulent representation was made or exeGuted prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (c) that the offended party relied on the falsé)pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means and was induced. to part with his money or property; and (d) that, as a result thereof, the offendedsparty suffered damage. Meanwhile, the following are the elements of falsifi¢ation of public documents: (1) the offender is a public officer or employee or notary public; (2) the offender takes advantage of his official position; and (3) he or she falsifies a document by committing any of the acts mentioned in Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code, such as causing it to appear that persons have participated inany act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate. Lastly, in order t6 be a public document, it must have been created, executed or issued by a public official in response to the exigencies of the public service, or a public official must have intervened in its execution. Here, Louis first obtained the money from Olivia by pretending that he can issue a franchise, when in fact, he does not have the power to do so. After obtaining the money, he issued the fake franchise. Thus, Louis must be convicted for separate ATTY. ANSELMO S. RODIEL IV 3o crimes of estafa and falsification of public documents, because the falsification was committed to conceal the estafa. Taylor received Harry in her house and told him to feel at home. Inside the house, Harry planned to steal money from Taylor and covertly got hold of her cellphone. Harry tried to access Taylor's electronic wallet account. After several attempts, Harry successfully opened Taylor's electronic wallet but it has zero balance. Harry returned Taylor's cellphone and left the house disappointed. Harry was charged liable for the impossible crime of theft? Explaii SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, Harry is liable for the impossible crime of theft, Case law dictates that the following are the elements of impossible crimé? (1) that the act performed would be angffense against persons or property; (2) that the act was done with evil intent; and @), that its accomplishment was inherently impossible, or the means employed wascither ifiadequate or ineffectual. Further, in order to become an ishipossible crime, theact must not beépuhishable under any provision in the Reyised Penal Code. Here, Harry inféndéd to steal money from Taylombidivever, this was inherently impossible, since the Biectronic.wailet account of Taylor had no balance. Thus, Harry is liable for the impossible erimeofithett, Yarijis,a lesbian who had a Romantic relationship with Malou. Yari financially supported)Malou and her brother Bobby, and even rented acondominium unit for them. After five.years, Malou broké up with Yari because she is longing the affection from a realiman. Yari suffered mental and emotional anguish because of the separation. Later, Yaridearned through friends that Malou is flaunting her boyfriend in_s6cial media, Yari discovered that Bobby is Malou’s long-time boyfriend, and that theysjust pretended to be siblings. Yari filed a criminal complaint for\violation of Republic Act No. 9262 or the Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004 (Anti-VAWO) against Malou and Bobby. As supporting evidence, Yari submitted a medical report which diagnosed her with major depressive disorder with symptoms of psychosis. At the trial, Malou argued that she is not criminally liable because the Anti- VAWC law is inapplicable to homosexual relationships. On the other hand, Bobby contended that the law is inapplicable to him because he is not in a relationship with Yari.. Are Malou and Bobby criminally liable for violation of the Anti-VAWC la Be in. (ANT VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND CHILDREN ACT WAS ATTY. ANSELMO S. RODIEL IV 4SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, Malou and Bobby are criminally liable for violating the Anti-VAWC Law, Under the Anti-VAWC Law, “violence against women and their children” refers to any act or a series of acts committed by any person against a woman who is his wife, former wife, or against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom he has a commoni¢hild}or against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or without the family abode, which result in or is likely to result in physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or economic abuse including threats of such acts, battery, assault, coercion, harassment or arbitrary deprivation of liberty. Further, case law dictates that while the said provision under the Anti-VAWC Law provides that the offender be related or connected to the victim by marriage, former marriage, or a sexual or dating relationship, it does not preclude the application of the principle of conspiracy under the RPC. Legal/principles developed from, the Revised Penal Code, such as the principle of conspiracy, may be applied in a Supplementary capacity to crimes punished Under special laws, such as R.A. No, 9262, in which the special law is silent on a particular matter, Thusy once conspiracy or action in concert to achieve a criffinialdesign is shown, the act of ORES the act of all the conspirators, and the precise extent or modallity of participation of each of them becomes secondaty, since all the conspirators are principals. Here, Malou’s argument deserves no merit, because the Anti-VAWC Law applies to homosexual relationships. The laWystates the phrase “any person against a woman,” soa woman can algo become the offender under this law. Further, Bobby is alSo.criminally liable, because Malou and Bobby pretended to be siblings, even though they, were lovers. This only shows that they conspired to hide their affair from Yari. ThuSboth Malou and Bobby are criminally liable for violating the Anti- VAWC Law. 6. Andy paid Billie PHP 50,000.00 to kill Charlie. Thereafter, Billie went to the house of Charlie and found him ound asleep. Billie took this opportunity and stabbed Charlie to death. The trial court convicted Andy and Billie of the crime of murder with aggravating circumstances of reward and treachery. Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Gode as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, the prescribed penalty for murder is¢reclusion perpetua to death. Considering that there are two aggravating circumstances, the trial court imposed upon Andy and Billie the penalty of reclusion perpetua without benefit of parole in lieu of death penalty in accordance with Republic Act No, 9346 or the law prohibiting the imposition of death penalty. Only Andy elevated the case to the Court of Appeals. Andy questioned the penalty and argued that he should only be liable for homicide with the prescribed penalty of reclusion temporal because the circumstances of reward ATTY. ANSELMO S. RODIEL IV 5and treachery cannot be appreciated against him. Decide what crime Andj committed and impore the proper penalty. Explain. (MURDER WAS SUGGESTED ANSWER: Andy must be liable for the crime of murder and the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua, Case law dictates that the following are the elemenigof murder: 1) That a person was killed; 2) That the accused killed him; 3) That the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Art, 248, such as treachery and in consideration of a price, reward, or promise; and 4) That the killing is not parricide or infanticide. Further, under the Revised Penal Gade, the circumstances which consist in the material execution ofsthe.act, or inthe means employed to accomplish it, shall serve to aggrayate or mitigate the liability of those persons only who had knowledge of themvat the time of the execution of the aet or their cooperation therein. Here, the qualifying aggravating circumstance 6Freward was present, since Andy paid Billie P50,000,00,6 Kill, Charlie. Thus, he committed thé crime of Murder qualified by reward) However the aggravating circumstance of treachery could not be appreciated against Andy, because he did not know how Billie will kill Charlie. All invall, Andy must be liable for the erime of murder, qualified by reward, and the propebpenally is reclusion perpetua. The MVL ‘Times is a dailyynewspaper with printed and online publications Harvey, a news reporter, wrotean article that Mike is a scammer and a womanizer. The articlewas published on both printed and online editions of MVL Times on the same dayy/Mike filed two sepatate criminal complaints against Harvey for Libel under Article 353 of the Reyised Penal Code and Cyberlibel under Section (4)()@) ofRepublic Act Noo10475 or Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. Harvey countered that/he can only be prosecuted for one count of libel. Can Harvey be prosecuted for two counts of libel under the Revised Penal Code and Republic ‘Act No. 10175? Explain (LIBEL WAS COVERED BY THE ARRC PRE-WEEK SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, Harvey must be prosecuted for only one count of libel. Case law dictates that the following are the elements of libel: (1) Defamatory imputation which causes dishonor or discredit, (2) Malice, either in law or in fact, (3) Publication, and (4) The victim must be identifiable. Further, there is cyberlibel ATTY. ANSELMO S. RODIEL IV 6if libel was committed through a computer system or any other similar means which may be devised in the future. Further, the computation of the number is not the publication but the writing or composing of the libel Here, Harvey wrote that Mike is a scammer and womanizer. This is clearly libelous. Since this article was uploaded online, Harvey shall be liable for cyberlibel. However, Harvey cannot be prosecuted for two counts of libel, since he only wrote the article once. It was just published on both printed and online editions of MVL Times. Zayn bought a toy gun which is a replica of 9 nim pistol. Zayn went inside a convenience store and pointed the imitation firearm to the security guard and the cashier who both dropped to the ground. Zayn took all the money from the cash register. The police arrested Zayn and charged himwith robbery with intimidation of persons. At the trial, Zayn argued thathe is liable only for theft because the toy gun cannot hurt or intimidate thé” security, guard a Se dies Explain, SUGGESTED ANSWER: Zayn is criminally lidble for robbery Case law dictates that the following are the elements,of robbery: (a) intent to gain, (b) unlawful taking: (Qypersonal property belonging to another, and (d) violence against or intimidation ofpérson or foFteupon things. Her@pthe security guard and the cashier did not know that Zayn had a toy gun with him)Erom their point of view, Zayn was carrying a real gun, since they both dropped to th@ground and they all6wed him to take the money from the cash register.n other Words, they were clearly intimidated by the actions of Zayn. ‘Thus, Zayn is crishinally liable for robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons, ). Sweethearts Hector and Rubi are both adventurous and daring lovers. In one of their escapades, Hector and Rubi agreed to record their coitus with a mobile phone. After a yeaF, Rubi broke up with Hector and found a new boyfriend. Hector got extremely qealous and circulated their sex videos, Rubi filed a criminal complaint for violation of Republic Act No. 9995 or the Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009. At the trial, Hector argued that he is not criminally liable because Rubi consented to the taking of the sex videos. Is Hector criminally liable for violation of Republic Act No. 9995 despite Rubi’s consent to the recordin; ATTY. ANSELMO S. RODIEL IV 710. SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, Hector is criminally liable for violating RA No. 9995. Under RA No. 9995, it is prohibited and declared unlawful for any person to a) take photo or video coverage of a person or group of persons performing sexual act or any similar activity or to capture an image of the private area of a person/s such as the naked or undergarment clad genitals, public area), buttocks or female breast without the consent of the person/s involved and under circumstances in which the person/s has/have a reasonable expectation of privacy or b) to publish or broadcast, or cause to be published or broadcast, whether in print or broadcast media, or show or exhibit the photo or video coverage or recordings of such sexual act or any similar activity through VCD/DVD, internet, cellular phones and other similar means or device. Further, «the» prohibition under b) shall apply notwithstanding that consent to record or take photo or video coverage of the same was given by such person/s. Here, Hector is criminally liable for Violating RA No. 9995, because the law clearly prohibits the publication or circulation 6f the sexWideo, regardless of the presence or absence of consent of Rubiito the publication or circulation/6f the same. Hugo and Huntet conspired to rape Aubrey. Pursuant to their plan, Hugo and Hunter intoxieated Aubrey and brought her to anabandoned house. Thereafter, Hunter received a call from his wife who was about to give birth. Hunter hurriedly left the scene and advised)Hugo to postpone their plan. Yet, Hugo ignored Hunter and raped Aubrey. The next day, the police arrested Hugo and Hunter and chatged them with rape. At thétrial, the prosecution argued that both Hugo and Hunter ae collectively liable for fape by reason of conspiracy where the act of one is the jact of all, What nae did me and Hunter commit? a SUGGESTED/ANSWER: Hunter and Hugo committed the crime of rape. Case law dictates/that in a conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. In order to hold an accused liable as co-principal by reason of conspiracy, he or she must be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or in furtherance of conspiracy. Here, Hugo must be held liable for the crime of rape, since he actually raped Aubrey. On the other hand, Hunter executed overt acts to commit the crime of rape, such as intoxicating Aubrey and bringing her to an abandoned house. Because of his actions, he should suffer all the consequences that his actions ATTY. ANSELMO §S. RODIEL IV 8nu. produced. Thus, even if Hunter left the scene, Hunter and Hugo must be considered as principals by conspiracy for the crime of rape. Camila surprised her legitimate husband Shawn in the act of sexual intercourse with his paramour Sabrina, Immediately, Sabrina stood up and jumped out of the window. Camila took a 45 calibre firearm from her drawer. Camila chased and caught up with Sabrina. Camila aimed her firearm against Sabrina, However, Sabrina snatched the firearm and shot Camila to deathaAt the trial, Sabrina invoked self-defer id Sabrina act in self-defense to justify the of Camila? sain SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, Sabrina did not act in self-defense tojustify the killing of Camila. Under the Revised Penal Code, anyone who acts in defenselobhis person@r rights, provided that the following circumstances concur; 1) Unlawful! aggression; 2) Reasonable necessity of the nleans employed fo prevent or repel it; and 3) Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of thé)person defending himself Here, there was sufficient provocation on the, part of Sabrina. If Sabrina did not sleep with Shawl, Camila’s spouse, Camila would not have aimed a firearm at her. Thus, Sabrina eannot invoke the justifying citéumistance of self-defense. Adele, a grocery cashienpwas chargédjunder the following information which reads: “the accused with intent to gain and abuse of confidence feloniously stole grogery items worth PHP 1,500.00 without consent of her employer.” In due course, thejtrial court convicted Adele of qualified theft. The trial court ruled that Adele took advantage of her positidA as a cashier which entails high degree of confidence because itinyolves handling of the properties of the employer. Did the trial court rea convict. Adele of a ied theft? Explain. SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, the trial courtilid not properly convict Adele of qualified theft. Case law dictates that theft is committed by any person who, with intent to gain, but without violence against: or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take the personal property of another without the latter's consent. Grave abuse of trust is a circumstance which aggravates and qualifies the commission of the crime of theft; hence, the imposition of a higher penalty is necessary. The crime of qualified theft requires the confluence of the following elements, to wit: (1) there ATTY. ANSELMO S, RODIEL IV 913. was a taking of personal property; (2) the said property belongs to another; (3) the taking was done without the consent of the owner; (4) the taking was done with intent to gain; (5) the taking was accomplished without violence or intimidation against person, or force upon things; and (6) the taking was done under any of the circumstances enumerated in Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, i.e.. with grave abuse of confidence. The job description of an accused as a grocery cashier does not automatically open a criminal liability for qualified theft absent convincing evidence of grave abuse of discretion anchored on the betrayal of special trust or high degree of confidence. Thus, whensthe gravity of exploitation of trust is not proven, the crime is only simple theft and the abuse of confidence shall be treated as a generic aggravating circumstance. Here, the facts did not show convincing evidence of grave abuse of discretion anchored on the betrayal of special trust or high degree of confidence. The facts merely showed that Adele was a groceryseashier. Thus, she can only be held liable for simple theft and not qualifiedstheft. Further, abuse.of confidence must be treated as a generic aggravating circumstance. Allen, David, and Edward ‘are investigative journalists who exposed public officials engaged in corrupt practices. They receivéddeath threats every day from unknown sources. One day, they received a letter which states? Are you ready to meet the Lord tomorrow??? ....Allen @1pm j, David @3pm .... Edward @7pm.” The following day, Allen was fatally stabbed at 1:00 p.m. while David was gunned down dead at3:00 p.m. At that moment, Edward sensed that his life was in danger. At 7:00 p.m., Edward went tochurch and prayed for his safety. A parishioner sat beside Edward and whispered to hithy“The [ord will not protect you!” The parishioner repeatedly stabbed Edward on his chest resulting in his instantaneous death»The police arrested the parishioner, later identified as Harold, and charged him with murder qualified by treachery, At the trial, Harold argued that the death threats and the’manner of attack forewarned Edward about his impending death which negate trea . Is Harold criminally liable for murder aggravated by ame Explain. SUGGESTED, ANSWER: Yes, Harold is crititinally liable for murder aggravated by treachery. Case law dictates that the following are the elements of murder: 1) That a person was killed; 2) That the accused killed him; 3) That the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Art. 248; and 4) That the killing is not parricide or infanticide. Treachery is one of the qualifying circumstances of Murder. Further, the following are the elements of treachery: (1) that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself or herself, and (2) that ATTY. ANSELMO S. RODIEL IV 1014. the offender consciously adopted the particular means, method or form of attack employed by him or her. Here, Harold impersonated himself as a parishioner, so that Edward will not suspect that he will attack him. Further, Harold deliberately adopted this method for killing Edward, so that Edward cannot put up any defense against him. Thus, even if Edward was forewamed of a possible attack against him, Harold must still be held liable for murder aggravated by treachery. The police officers received confidential informatio# that Larry was engaged in illegal drug trade activities. The authorities organized an entrapment operation and designated PO1 Miguel as poseur buyer. The operatives proceeded to the target area. The confidential informant introduced POL Miguel to Larry who intended to buy PHP 1,000,00- worth of shabu. Larrydemanded payment bubPO1 Miguel insisted that he should see the itempfirst. Larryithen took out a sachet from his pocket. PO1 Miguel wasted no time and executed the)pre-arranged signal. The operatives rushed to the scene/ arrested Larry, and séized the sachet. The confiscated item tested positiye fon shabu, Accordingly, Larry Was charged with and convicted of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs’Act of 2002. Larry appealed and argued that he is not criminally liable for illegal sale of dangeFous drugs because there was no meeting of minds)between him and PO1 Miguel as to the object and price of the transaction. Is Larry liable for violation of Republic Act No. 9165 even if the sale of eA i was not consimmated: ie Ge SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, Larry islidble for violation of Republic Act No. 9165. He committed the crime of attempted illegal Sale of dangerous drugs. Case law dictatés that in order to secure the conviction of an accused charged with Attempted Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, the prosecution must be able to prove: {a) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (b) the fact thatthe sale of the illegal drugs was attempted. A crime is attempted when the offendercommences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution, which should produce the felony, by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. Here, Larry can be convicted for attempted illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The identities of Larry and PO1 Miguel, the sachet of shabu, and the price of the same were present. Further, the sale of the illegal drugs was attempted, since Larry was apprehended after he took out the sachet of shabu from his pocket in order to sell ATTY. ANSELMO S. RODIEL IV n16, the same to POI Miguel. Thus, Larry is liable for the crime of attempted illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The Ombudsman found probable cause against Governor Rocky and Quentin, a private individual, who both allegedly conspired in committing a violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. However, Governor Rocky was killed in an ambush. Yet, the Ombudsman still filed the information against Quentin before the Sandiganbayan. Quentin moved to quash the information on the ground of extinction of¢riminal liability. Quentin argued that the prosecution for violation of the anti-graft law cannot prosper with the death of Governor Rocky because there is no public officer charged in the information. Is Quentin's criminal liability extinguished with the death of Governor Rocky? Explain. SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, Quentin’s criminal liability was hot extinguished with the death of Govermor Rocky. Under the Revised Pénal Code) death is one ofthe modes of extinguishing criminal liability. Howeyer, death of a co-conspirator, is not one of the modes of extinguishing.¢riminal liability. Further, under existing jurisprudence, in order to charge a private personunder Section 3(¢) of R.A. 3019, he must be alleged to have acted in conspiracy with a public officers The law, however, does not require that such person must, in all instances, be indicted together with the public officer. If circtimstances exist where the public officer may no longer be charged in court, as in the present case where the public officer has already died, the private person may beindictétbalone. Here, Goy. Rocky, a public official, and Quentin, a private individual, were supposed to bé charged as conspirators for violating Sec. 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. However, Gov. Rocky @ied before the information was filed with the Sandiganbayan. Still, Quentin can be indicted alone for violating Sec. 3(e) of R.A No. 3019, because (1) death of a co-conspirator is not one of the modes of extinguishing criminal liability, and (2) Gov. Rocky could not be indicted, since he died already. Franco and Amber are in an illicit relationship. Amber informed Franco that she is seven months pregnant and showed her baby bump. Franco got furious and planned to abort the fetus to conceal his infidelity. Franco instructed Xian to use drugs on Amber that will induce labor and make sure that she suffers a miscarriage. Xian secretly administered drugs on Amber who then experienced TTY. ANSELMO S. RODIEL IV n17. abdominal cramping and contractions. Amber was brought to the hospital and delivered a baby girl. However, the baby died after three days because of multiple organ failure secondary to induced abortion. Absent any conspiracy, discuss the jpation and criminal of Franco and Xian for the death SUGGESTED ANSWER: Franco is liable for parricide. Xian is liable for murder. Case law dictates that for infanticide, parricide, of murder, it is necessary that the child be born alive and be viable, that is, capable of independent existence. If it was incapable of independent existence, the crim@ would be abortion. Further, case law dictates that the following are.theelements of,parricide: That a person is killed; 2) That the deceased is killed/by the atcused; and,3) That the deceased is the father, mother, or child, wheth@r legitimate or illegitimate,or a legitimate other ascendant or other descendantyor ithe legitimate spouse of the accused. Also, the following are the elements of murder: 1) That a person was killed; 2) That the accused killed him; 3) That the killingywas atfénded by any of the qualifying circumstances mentionéd ifpArt. 248; and)4) That the killifig’is not parricide or infanticide. Treachery is one of the qualifying eircumstances of Murder. The Killing, of a baby is attended with treachery, since thebaby cannot put up any defense. Lastly, under.the Revised Penal Code, the following.are considered principals: 1) Those who take a directpart in the execution of theact; 2) Those who directly force or induce others to commit it; and 3)/Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act Without which it would not have been accomplished. Here, th@\baby girl was capableof independent existence, since Amber was already.seven months pregnant whehithe baby girl was delivered. After three days from the delivery ofithe baby girl, she died due to multiple organ failure. Thus, Franco, a§\the principal bysinducement and the father of the baby girl, must be held liable forythe crime of parricide. Meanwhile, Xian, as the principal by direct participation, must be held liable for the crime of murder, since the baby gir! could not have put up any defense from his assault. Alvin and Dennisitogether with a John Doe, who remained unidentified and at large, were charged with the crime of rape. The information reads: Alvin, Dennis, and John Doe, through force, violence, and intimidation, conspiring together and mutually helping one another, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of AAA and took turns raping her, by inserting, their penises into the vagina of AAA, to her damage and prejudice.” At the trial, the prosecution established that the rapes were committed in the following order, first by Alvin, second by Dennis, third by John Doe, and fourth by Alvin again ATTY. ANSELMO S. RODIEL IV B18, The trial court convicted Alvin and Denni of rape to the exclusion of the rape that John Doe committed. Is the judgment of conviction correct as to the number of rape: ai SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, the judgment of conviction was wrong as to the number of rapes. Case law dictates that the elements of Rape arey/(1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) such act was acgomplished through the use of force, threat, or intimidation, Further, in conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. It may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated, showing that at the time of the commission of the offense, all the perpetrators have the same purpose andowere united,in its execution. Thug, the accused- appellant is responsible nofonly forthe Rape he committed but also for the other counts of Rape that his.¢0-conspirators perpetratethalthough they were unidentified or at large. Here, even if John Doe was unidentified; Alvingand Dennis must also be responsible for the rapé'thatjohn Doe committed. Thus, Alvi and Dennis must be convicted for four counts oftrape. Levi engagedythe scort serviges of Leo for PHP)50(000.00. Levi and Leo then checked in at the hoteland had sex. Afterwards, Levi paid Leo PHP 10,000.00. Leo felt shortchanged when he réceived aiviamount smaller than what was promised. At that instance, Leo grabbed a knife from the kitchen and repeatedly stabbed LevigThereafter, Leo rummaged through the belongings of Levi and took his wallet, cellphone, and watch. Leouvas charged with and convicted of the special complex crimé)of.robbery with homieide. The trial court explained that the killing was by feason of OFOn,o as to the) crimescommitied? .Explai SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, the judgment6f conviction was not correct. Case law dictates that the following are the elements of Robbery with Homicide: (1) the taking of personal property belonging to another; (2) with intent to gain or animus lucrandi; (3) with the use of violence or intimidation against a person; and (4) on the occasion or by reason of the robbery, the crime of homicide, as used in its generic sense, was committed. If the original intent of the offender was to rob the victim, but by reason or on occasion of the same, the victim was killed, the ATTY. ANSELMO S. RODIEL IV 419. crime would be robbery with homicide. Meanwhile, if the original intent of the offender was to kill the victim, and after the killing incident, the victim's belongings were taken, the separate crimes of homicide and theft were committed. Here, the original intent of Leo was to kill Levi. Later, as an afterthought, Leo stole the belongings of Levi. Thus, Leo must not be held guilty for the crime of robbery with homicide. Instead, he must be held guilty of homicide and theft. POS Wyatt personally witnessed how Lucas mauledaihd threatened to kill his neighbor. PO3 Wyatt introduced himself as police officer but Lucas ran away. PO3 Wyatt chased Lucas and grabbed his right arm. Lu€as punched PO3 Wyatt on the chest to free himself. Lucas then entered his house and slammed the gate shut which caught PO3 Wyatt's left hand resulting in)slight abrasions. Lucas then surrendered to the authorities. The prosecution charged Lucas with direct asgault because he intentionally used force andsinjured PO3 Wyatt while performing his duties as a police officer. Lucas cotintered that he Was, merely evading’ arrest of PO3 Wyatt. What crime did Lucas SUGGESTED ANSWER? Lucas committedithe crime of resistance to anagent of a person in authority. Case law dictates thatithe follwing are the elements of direct assault: 1) That the offender (a) makes an attack; (6) employs force, (¢) makes a serious intimidation, or (d) makes a serious resistance; 2) That the person assaulted is a person in autlority or his agent; 3) That at the time of the assault the person in authority or his agenti(a) is engaged in the actual performance of official duties, or [b] that he is assaulted bypreason of the past)performance of official duties; 4) That the offender knows thatithe one he is assaulting is a person in authority or his agent in the exercise ofjhis dutigspand 5) That there is no public uprising. Further, case law dictates that the laying of hands or using physical force against agents of persons in @uthority when not serious in nature constitutes resistance or disobedience under Article 151, and not direct assault under Article 148 of the RPC. This is because the gravity of the disobedience to an order of a person in authority or his agent is measured by the circumstances surrounding the act, the motives prompting it and the real importance of the transgression, rather than the source of the order disobeyed. Lastly, previous convictions for direct assault against an agent of a person in authority involve force that is more severe than slapping and punching. Here, PO3 Wyatt was exercising his duties at the time of the commission of the crime. Further, Lucas punched PO3 Wyatt and he slammed the gate shut which ATTY, ANSELMO S. RODIEL IV 1caught PO3 Wyatt's left hand resulting to slight abrasions. Thus, Lucas committed the crime of resistance to an agent of a person in authority, because the physical force against PO3 Wyatt was not serious in nature. . AAA executed a sworn complaint-affidavit at the police station narrating how a certain Carson sexually abused her on September 11, 2024, thus: Q: What is your name and age? A: lam AAA, 17 years old. Q: What is your complaint all about? A: On September 11, 2024, I was sexually abused by Carson, the live-in partner of my mother, in our house in Quezon City. Q: How did Carson sexually abuse you? A; Carson entered my room, pointed a knife at my side, and threatened to kill me. Thereafter, Carson undressed me and. inserted his penis into my vagina. Carson warned me not to tell anyone what happened and that he would take responsibility should I get pregnant. Based on these narrations, prepare)the information charging the appropriate crime that Carson committed. Omit the. cee and. certification. coxarrine SUGGESTED ANSWER: INFORMATION That on or about the 11th of September, 2024 in Quezon City, Metro-Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, Carson, the accused, being the common-law Spouse of the mother of one [AAA], a minor, 17 years of age, with lewd design and by means of force and intimidation employed upon the latter, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously lie and have sexual intercourse with said [AAA], against the latter's will and without her consent, Which act and condition is prejudicial to the development of the said minor victim. CONTRARY TO LAW. September 12, 2024. Quezon City, Philippines. [signed] Assistant City Prosecutor Approved: [signed] Chief, Office of the City Prosecutor ATTY. ANSELMO S. RODIEL IV 16