I

Yes, they are criminally liable for the crime of Rebellion.

According to the Revised Penal Code, there is Rebellion when any person, or group of persons
organized themselves in taking up against the government.

Here, when A, B, C, and D organized themselves into a group called “Wolverines” and attack the local
police and military camps which is the first line of defense of the government, they committed
Rebellion.

Hence, the group is liable for the crime of Rebellion.

II

No, the charge of direct bribery is not correct.

The Revised Penal Code provides that there is direct bribery when a person offers a public officer any
gift or money in consideration of his public position.

Here, Kwatog, a private person, did not offer the public offier PO2 Silbato any money or gift.

Hence, the charge of bribery cannot be applied to this case.

III

a. Trish committed the crime of estafa.

The RPC provides that when a person has the obligation to return a thing to another and failed to do it,
he/she is guilty of the crime of estafa.

Here, Trish has the duty to return the ring to Tina for it was only lent to her. But instead of doing it,
Trish, without the knowledge of Tina, pawned the ring to a pawnshop.

Hence, Trish can be liable of the crime of estafa.

b. Tina may no longer recover the thing from Nilda.

The RPC provides an exception to the rule in instances where a person may recover from another.
When a thing is sold at a public auction, the person claiming ownership may no longer collect from the
party who subsequently bought it.

Here, Nilda is now the rightful owner of the ring since she bought it from the public auction.

Hence, Tina may no longer recover from Nilda.

IV

Pedro may be liable for attempted murder.

In a similar case decided by the Supreme Court, an accused, with an intent to kill, fired shots to his
victims and left fatal wounds, and thereafter retreated due to his own resistance, may still be liable for
the crime of attempted murder.

Here, Pedro had an intent to kill when he shot Juan in the chest and Pedro on his left shoulder. The
wounds are fatal as the attending physician confirmed that if not for the immediate medical attention,
both Pedro and Juan would have died.

Hence, Pedro may be liable for the crime of attempted murder.

V

a. Juan should be liable for the crime of arson with homicide and slight physical injuries.

The RPC provides that a person is liable for arson when he/she sets a building on fire. Moreover, any
person who acted with an intent to kill which produced an injury that requires medical attention for less
than ten days is liable for slight physical injuries.

Here, Juan with the intention to kill Pedro and Pia only, burned the three-storey motel down which
injured Pedro and Pia and killed Wally and Ana.

Hence, Juan is liable for the crime of arson with homicide and slight physical injuries.

b. Yes, Petra may be held liable as a principal by induction.

The RPC provides that a person may be liable as a principal by giving reward, gift or promise to
anyone to induce him to do a criminal act.

Here, Petra induced Juan to kill Pedro and Pia by offering P100,000. This is the moving power that
induced Juan to kill them.

Hence, Petra is liable as a principal by induction.

VI

Max may be charged and convicted of the crime of direct assault.

RPC provides that the crime of direct assault is present when a person attacks a public officer by reason
of his/her public office or the performance of his/her duties.

Here, Janet is a public officer who is one of those attacked by Max by handcuffing her. The crime was
committed by reason of her office as a clerk of court in charge over the preliminary conference of a
civil case.

Hence, Max may be liable of the crime of direct assault.

VII

No, the motion to quash on the ground that the RTC has no jurisdiction since the illicit relation
occurred outside of the country should not be granted.

In a similar case decided by the Supreme Court, violation of RA 9262 can be filed in the Philippines,
although the acts constituting the violation are committed outside of the country.

Here, although BBB is in Singapore and the illicit relationship is committed there, the RTC of Pasig
has jurisdiction over him.

Hence, the motion to quash should not be granted.

VIII
IX

If I were the investigating prosecutor, I will institute the action by filing the complaint in court.

The RPC provides that the crime of estafa through misappropriation is present when a person entrusted
his money or property to another and that the latter used the same for purposes not agreed upon.

Here, when Pedro placed his money in Bangko Pinoy, Igor, who is the principal stockholder has the
duty to keep the same according to their agreement. When Igor used the money for another purpose not
subject of their agreement, he committed estafa through misappropriation.

Hence, the complaint should be instituted in the proper court.

X

a. Rodrigo is liable for the crime of frustrated homicide.

The RPC provides that when a person committed all the acts necessary for producing the crime and did
not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator, the crime is frustrated.

Here, when Rodrigo pointed the gun at Reyno with intent to kill, pressed the trigger, Rodrigo
performed all the acts necessary for the killing. But because of the jammed trigger, which is beyond the
control of Rodrigo, it did not produce the crime.

Hence, Rodrigo is liable for the crime of frustrated homicide.

b. Yes, Rodrigo would still be liable for an impossible crime.

The RPC provides that when a person performed all necessary acts for the execution of the crime
against any person or property, with deliberate intent, but for some reason it is inherently impossible to
produce it, he is still liable.

Here, when Rodrigo pointed the gun at Reyno and pulled the trigger, he performed all necessary acts
for the execution of the act. However, when no bullet came out of it as there was no more bullet left
inside the gun, it becomes impossible for him to kill Reyno.

Hence, Rodrigo would still be criminally liable.

XI

Yes, Zet may be held criminally liable for the killing of Paolo.

The RPC provides that any a person may be criminally liable for his acts if it produces an act the
proximate cause of which results to death or injury of another.

Here, the proximate cause of the death of Paolo is the act of Zet in pointing a gun to Paolo and chasing
him that resulted the bystanders Jun and Shawn to maul and beat Paolo to death. Had Zet not pointed
the gun and chased Paolo, he would not have ran and the bystanders will not have thought of mauling
and beating him.

Hence, Zet may be liable for the killing of Paolo.

XII

No, Aaron, Aguila and Leona cannot be punishable under our Revised Penal Code.

The RPC states that public officers who committed crimes abroad in the performance of their duty can
be prosecuted in a Philippine court.

Here, Aguila and Leona are not public officers. When they committed substantial changes in the
transcript of stenographic notes, they are not acting in the performance of their duty.

Hence, Aguila and Leona cannot be prosecuted. However, Aaron, as the public officer, can be tried in a
Philippine court.

Aaron may be punished for the crime of falsification of public document.

XIII

Yes, M may be liable for misprision of treason.

The RPC provides that the crime of misprision of treason is present when a person with knowledge of
the acts of treason, in times of war, failed to report the same.

Here, M has the knowledge of X, Y, and Z adehring to the enemy and giving them aid or comfort. He
failed to report the same to the governor or prosecutor of the province or the mayor where he resides.

Hence, M may me liable for misprision of treason.

XIV

No, the court may no longer rule on the civil aspect of the case by reason of the death of the accused
prior to the promulgation of judgment.

In a similar case decided by the Supreme Court, the criminal and civil liability of the accused are
extinguished by his death before the promulgation of judgment.

Here, the accused B, died before the promulgation of judgment.

Hence, the civil and criminal liability are extinguished.