Ariel P.

Ramada

1. Immediately after murdering Bob, Jake went to his mother to seek refuge. His mother
told him to hide in the maid’s quarters until she finds a better place for him to hide. After
two days, Jake transferred to his aunt’s house. A week later, Jake was apprehended by the
police. Can Jake’s mother and aunt be made criminally liable as accessories to the crime
of murder? Explain. (3 %)

Suggested Answer: Obviously, Jake’s mother was aware of her son’s having committed a felony,
such that her act of harboring and concealing him renders her liable as an accessory. But being an
ascendant to Jake, she is exempt from criminal liability by express provision of Article 20 of the
Revised Penal Code. On the other hand, the criminal liability of Jake’s aunt depends on her
knowledge of his commission of the felony, her act of harboring and concealing Jake would
render her criminally liable as accessory to the crime of murder; otherwise without knowledge of
Jake’s commission of the felony, she would not be liable.

2. While his wife was on a 2-year scholarship abroad, Romeo was having an affair with his
maid Dulcinea. Realizing that the affair was going nowhere, Dulcinea told Romeo that
she was going back to the province to marry her childhood sweetheart. Clouded by anger
and jealousy, Romeo strangled Dulcinea to death while she was sleeping in the maid’s
quarters. The following day, Romeo was found catatonic inside the maid’s quarters. He
was brought to the National Center for Mental Health (NCMH) where he was diagnosed
to be mentally unstable. Charged with murder, Romeo pleaded insanity as a defense. Will
Romeo’s defense prosper? Explain. (2%)

Suggested Answer: No, Romeo’s defense of insanity will not prosper because, even assuming
that Romeo was “insane” when diagnosed after he committed the crime, insanity as a defense to
the commission of crime must have existed and proven to be so existing at the precise moment
when the crime was being committed. The fact of the case indicate that Romeo committed the
crime with discernment.

3. Jack and Jill have been married for seven years. One night, Jack came home drunk.
Finding no food on the table, Jack started hitting Jill only to apologize the following day.
A week later, the same episode occurred – Jack came home drunk and started hitting Jill.
Fearing for her life, Jill left and stayed with her sister. To woo Jill back, Jack sent her
floral arrangements of spotted lilies and confectioneries. Two days later, Jill returned
home and decided to give Jack another chance. After several days, however, Jack again
came home drunk. The following day, he was found dead. Jill was charged with parricide
but raised the defense of "battered woman syndrome." Would the defense prosper despite
the absence of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense under the
Revised Penal Code? Explain. (2%)

if any. Eunice. Will the suit prosper? Explain your answer. he merely cooperated in carrying out the plan which was already in place 5. got married in the African state of Kenya where sterility is a ground for annulment of marriage. heard about the marriage and secures a copy of the marriage contract in New York. but told Ponciano: "O. the suits will not prosper. 9262 provides that victim-survivors who are found by the courts to be suffering from battered woman syndrome do not incur any criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense under the Revised Penal Code 4. the spouses were assigned to the U. Emmanuel and Margarita. ha. The first wife.Suggested Answer: Yes. Ponciano borrowed Ruben’s gun. Because Ruben also resented Freddie. Hubert and Eunice were married in the Philippines. saying that he would use it to kill Freddie. Such cooperation is not indispensable to the killing. pagkabaril mo kay Freddie. he readily lent his gun. specifically the RPC. the nationality principle set forth in Article 15 of the Civil Code will govern the relations of Emmanuel and Margarita. Margarita filed an annulment case against Emmanuel before a Philippine court on the ground of her husband’s sterility at the time of the celebration of the marriage. isauli mo kaagad. as in fact the killing was carried out without the use of Ruben’s gun. but used a knife because he did not want Freddie’s neighbors to hear the gunshot. 6. Section 26 of Rep. penal laws. Thereafter. are enforceable only within the bounds of our territory (Art. State Department. Eunice filed a case of Bigamy against Hubert in the Philippines. On the first year of the spouses’ tour of duty in the Philippines. because the Philippine Courts have no jurisdiction over a crime committed outside of the Philippine territory. Neither way Ruben may be regarded as a co-conspirator since he was not a participant in the decision-making of Ponciono to kill Freddie. Act No." Later. Since they are American . (3%) Suggested Answer: No. is the liability of Ruben? Explain. (3%) Suggested Answer: Ruben’s liability is that of an accomplice only because he merely cooperated in Ponciano’s determination to kill Freddie. American citizens and employees of the U. What.S. Ponciano killed Freddie. Hubert took graduate studies in New York and met his former girlfriend Eula. As applied to foreign nationals with the respect to family relations and status of persons.S. 2. Embassy in Manila. Under the principle of territoriality. Will the case prosper? Suggested Answer: No. RPC). They renewed their friendship and finally decided to get married.

However. 366 SCRA 437 [2001]. IbaySomera. Nanette. 133778. she tells Rodolfo that she prefers to live with him. Garcia v. Recio. lack of legal capacity. reiterating the doctrine in Niñal v. Court of Appeals 345 SCRA 92 [2000]. Laica. since Faye married Brad at the age of 18. for hospital and other medical expenses in delivering the child by caesarean section.R. The marriage of Roderick and Faye is not valid. 16 years old. G. Faye gave birth to a baby girl. Dayot. G. When Faye was 25 years old. this five-year period is characterized by exclusivity and continuity. claiming that Rodolfo promised to marry her. Court of Appeals 570 SCRA 472 [2008]). Was the marriage of Roderick and Faye valid? (2%) Suggested Answer: No. claiming that they have been continuously cohabiting for more than 5 years. Brad discovered her continued liason with Roderick and in one of their heated arguments. Faye shot Brad to death. and. Roderick continued to regularly visit Faye while Brad was away at work. Although Faye lived with Brad after the marriage. In Republic v. 174 SCRA 653[1989].R. Llorente v. If Rodolfo files an action for the custody of Rona. Under the Family Code. no license shall necessary for the marriage of a man and a woman who have lived together as husband and wife for at least 5 years and without any legal impediment to marry each other. a 19-year old girl. Nanette sued Rodolfo for damages: actual. and Bayot v. the mother alone has parental . Rodolfo.citizens. will the court grant Rodolfo’s petition? Why or why not? (2%) Suggested Answer: No. and begot a baby girl. the governing law as to the ground for annulment is not Kenyan Law which Magarita invokes in support of sterility as such ground. 175581. Rona. 28 March 2008. 8. When Roderick was 18 and Faye. 7. She lost no time in marrying her true love Roderick. In the present case. 4. Art. During their marriage. Roderick and Faye were high school sweethearts. without a marriage license. in fact. No. and exemplary. because he is better off financially than Nanette. during the first two years of cohabitation. married to Sharon. they started to live together as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage. representing that he was single when. He who has the parental authority has the right to custody. moral. which is the national Law of both Emmanuel and Margarita as recognized under Philippine Law. The absence of a marriage license made the marriage of Faye and Roderick void ab initio. because Rodolfo has no parental authority over Rona. No. her parents forcibly took her back and arranged for her marriage to Brad. he was not. the marriage of Roderick and Faye cannot be considered as a marriage of exceptional character. Bayadog. The nationality principle as expressed in the application of national law of foreign nationals by Philippine courts is established by precedents (Pilapil v. but should be U. Law. alleging that he is Rona’s choice as custodial parent. FC provides that the absence of any of the essential or formal requisites renders the marriage void ab initio. the Philippine court will not give due course to the case based on Kenyan Law. When Faye reached 18 years of age. (A). had an illicit affair with his secretary. to teach a lesson to like-minded Lotharios. because there were 2 legal impediments during their cohabitation: minority on the part of Faye. 14 March 2000. Hence.S. When Rona reaches seven (7) years old.

Mere suspicion that the crime has been committed is not sufficient. He kept the money inside the vault and soon he heard the news that a gang that included Modesto had been engaged in bank robberies.authority over the illegitimate child. To be criminally liable as an accessory under Article 19 of the Code. RPC. RPC. Rodolfo should first deprive Nanette of parental authority if there is ground under the law. guardian or person entrusted with the custody of a minor. Sometime in August. In the same action.” Even if he can be considered as an accessory under paragraph 2 of Article 19. . 9. Abelardo. being the brother of Modesto under Article 20. 10. When Abelardo later examined the two bags. 273. retain him in his services. such person must have knowledge of the commission of the crime. came with two heavy bags. What is Abelardo's liability? (7%) Suggested Answer: Abelardo is not criminally liable. This is true even if illegitimate father recognized the child and even though he is giving support for the child. To acquire custody over Rona. the police captured. The term “knowledge “ under the law is not synonymous with suspicion. shall against the minor‟s will. kept quiet about the two bags in his vault. unsure of what to do under the circumstances. Modesto. 1998 while Abelardo was in his office. the court may award custody of Rona to Rodolfo if it is for her best interest. and in a proper court proceedings. who under the pretext of reimbursing himself of a debt incurred by an ascendant. in his rough count. he saw bundles of money that. Exploitation of child labor is committed by a person. Moreover. together with two other men in police uniform. the facts as given in the problem would show lack or absent of intent to conceal the effects of the crime as Abelardo is described as being “unsure of what to do under the circumstances. the proper offense is exploitation of child labor (Art. The creditor who resorts to forced labor of a child under the pretext of reimbursing himself for the debt incurred by the child’s father commits the crime of slavery Suggested Answer: False. and secured a confession from. Modesto and Abelardo are brothers. Soon after. Modesto asked Abelardo to keep the two bags in his vault until he comes back to get them. RPC). Modesto who admitted that their loot had been deposited with Abelardo. could not be less than P5 Million. Abelardo is not liable.