number 1 ANSWER: A.

Parricide is committed by any person who shall kill his

father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or his legitimate
other ascendants, or descendants, or his legitimate spouse (Article 246)
without the qualifying circumstance of infanticide. B. Murder is committed by
any person who shall kill another person without the qualifying circumstance in
infanticide and parricide, and with any of the following qualifying
circumstances: (1) In consideration of a price, reward or promise; (2) Evident
premeditation; (3) Treachery; (4) taking advantage of superior strength; (5)
aid of armed men; (6) employing means to weaken the defense; (7) employing
means or persons to insure or afford impunity; (8) cruelty; (9) outraging or
scoffing at his person or corpse; (10) by means of inundation, fire, poison,
explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a
railroad, fall of an airship; (11) by means of motor vehicles; (12) with the
use of any other means involving great waste and ruin; or (13) on occasion of
calamity. (Article 248; 1958, 1960, 1999, and 2012 Bar Exams) Dwelling is not a
qualifying circumstance. C. Homicide is committed by any person who kills
another without the qualifying circumstance in infanticide, parricide, or
murder. D.. Death under Exceptional Circumstance; Any legally married person
who having surprised his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse
with another person, shall kill any of them or both of them in the act or
immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any serious physical injury,
shall suffer the penalty of destierro. If he shall inflict upon them physical
injuries of any other kind, he shall be exempt from punishment. (Art.247 RPC)
These rules shall be applicable, under the same circumstances, to parents with
respect to their daughters under eighteen years of age, and their seducer,
while the daughters are living with their parents. E. Abortion is committed by:
(1) a person who intentionally causes an abortion with violence against the
pregnant woman, or without her consent or with her consent (Article 256); (2)
by the pregnant woman, who practices an abortion upon herself or consents that
other person should do so whether the purpose is to conceal her dishonor or
not; (3) by the parent of the pregnant woman with the consent of said woman for
the purpose of concealing her dishonor (Article 258); or (4) by a physician or
midwife who, taking advantage of their scientific knowledge or skill, causes an
abortion or assist in causing the same; or (5) by a pharmacist who, without the
proper prescription from a physician, dispenses any abortive. (Article 259)

#2 When a person takes personal property or money and only the material or
physical possession is acquiesced and he misappropriates the same, theft is
committed because the owner was deprived of his property without his consent.
If juridical possession is transferred, estafa is committed. Juridical
possession is the kind where the possessor can assert his right to possess even
against the property owner. If the taking of money is a public fund and
committed by an accountable public officer, it is malversation. If the taking
of personal property belonging to another, with intent to gain, was committed
by means of violence, intimidation or using force upon anything, it is robbery.

#17 a. Is H liable for the death of P? Why or why not? Discuss. Yes, H is
liable for the death of P. Art. 247 of the RPC provides that any legally
married person who having surprised his spouse in the act of committing sexual
intercourse with another person, shall kill any of them or both of them in the
act or immediately thereafter, shall suffer the penalty of destierro. b. Is H
liable for the injuries sustained by W? Why or why not? Discuss. Guys. Can i
change my answer sa #17 b??? H is still liable diay kay he committed serious
physical injuries against W. But the penalty is only destierro.

campanilla: In exceptional circumstance, there are two rules, to wit:

in case of death and serious physical injuries under exceptional
circumstance, the accused shall be subjected to a protective
measure of destierro; and in case of less serious or slight physicaJ
injuries under exceptional circumstance, the accused is exempted.
9.) Deprivation of liberty of an individual is considered: A.) It is Arbitrary
Detention when a public officer detains another without legal or lawful ground.
B.) t is punished as Kidnapping or Serious Illegal Detention when committed by
any private individual who shall kidnap or detain another or in any manner
deprive him of his liberty. -If it lasted for more than three days -If
committed simulating public authority -If serious physical injuries, or threats
to kill him were made -If the person kidnapped is a minor except when accused
is any of the parents C.) Punished as Slight Illegal Detention if accused
voluntarily release the victim within three days, without having attained the
purpose. D.) It is punished as Slavery if a person shall purchase, sell,
kidnap, or detain another human being for the purpose of enslaving him, or for
assigning him or her to an immoral traffic. E.) It is punished as Forcible
Abduction when committed by any person who abducts any woman against her will
and with lewd design.
(14) If I were the prosecutor, I will file homicide against Jojo. Homicide is the unlawful killing of any person which is
neither parricide, murder, nor infanticide. As held by the Supreme Court, when death resulted, even if there is no intent
to kill, the crime is homicide, not merely physical injuries, because with respect to crimes of personal violence, the
penal law looks particularly to the material results following the unlawful act and holds the aggressor responsible for all
the consequencea thereof.

Dennis Shongi
@Aubrey Caballero
direct assault complexed w homicide

Aubrey Caballero
Naa ba complex ang direct assault kuya?

Serafina Quh
Serafina removed a message

Dennis Shongi
uu bgry captain - public officer

Aubrey Caballero
(14) If I were the prosecutor, I will file direct assault complex with homicide against Jojo.

Direct assault is also committed by any person who shall attack, employ force or seriously intimidate or resist a person
in authority or his agents, while engaged in the performance of official duties, or on occasion of such performance.
Killing a barangay chairman for preventing a violent confrontation between the accused and another person constitutes
complex crime of direct assault with homicide or murder.

Guys, sorry changing my answer kay wala nako na-appreciate iyang pagka barangay chairman. Pasensya.

#13 (Reference is Campanilla Vol. 1) No. Mang Dado is not liable for the death
of Canor and for the injuries sufferred by Dodong and Bebot. Under the RPC, any
person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by
mere accident without fault or intention of causing it, is exempt from
criminal liability. In the instant case, threat to spank is not a felony. Mang
Dado was just exercising his right of self-help and threat to spank is a
reasonable and necessary means to repeal invasion of his property right over
his mango tree. It follows that he is not responsible for any direct, natural
and logical consequence thereof, as in this case, the death of Canor and the
injuries suffered by Dodong and Bebot.

27. (a) Yes, Jane violated P.D. 1829 or committed obstruction of justice.
Section 1 (c) of P.D. 1829 provides that it shall be unlawful for any person to
knowingly or willfully obstruct the apprehension of suspects by harboring or
concealing any person he knows has committed any offense under existing penal
laws in order to prevent his arrest, prosecution, and conviction. Hence, Jane’s
act of knowingly concealing Baldo from the police constitutes a violation P.D.
1829. (b) No, my answer will not be the same. Under the RPC, persons who,
having knowledge of the commission of the crime and without participating
therein as principals or accomplice, take part subsequent to its commission by
profiting themselves from the effects of the crime are guilty as accessories to
the crime. Here, Jane profited from the crime committed by Baldo by accepting
the P100,000.00. Hence, Jane is guilty as being an accessory to the crime of
kidnap for ransom.

15. a.) Bugoy committed qualified trespass to dwelling, frustrated homicide for
the stabbing of Carlos, and less serious physical injuries for the assault on
Pastor. The crime of qualified trespass to dwelling should not be complexed
with frustrated homicide because when the trespass is committed as a means to
commit a more serious crime, trespass to dwelling is absorbed by the greater
crime and the former constitutes an aggravating circumstance of dwelling
(People v. Abedoza, 53 Phil 788). b.) The stabbing of Carlos and the assault on
Pastor were merely an afterthought, hence Bugoy is liable for the separate
crimes of trespass to dwelling, frustrated homicide, and less serious physical
injuries.

6. Lawrence committed falsification of public document. that in the

falsification of public or official documents, whether by public officials or
by private persons, it is unnecessary that there be present the idea of gain or
the intent to injure a third person, for the reason that, in contradiction to
private documents, the principal thing punished is the violation of the public
faith and the destruction of the truth as therein solemnly proclaimed. In the
present case, although it is true that it was his secretary who performed the
overt act of writing the allegedly false facts of Lawrence's PDS, it was
however, Lawrence who told him to do so by supplying him with those facts.
Consequently, the employee was Lawrence's mere innocent agent in the
performance of the crime charged, while defendant was a principal by
inducement.

-- Maam
@Milleran Frouh
mao ni gi cite ni judge nga SC decision falsification thru reckless imprudence
37 answer: Pardon in the form of affidavit of desistance (People v. Alcante,
G.R. Nos. 127026-27 May 31, 2000) or recantation (People v. Dollano, Jr., G.R.
No. 188851, October 19, 2011) as a bar to institution of criminal action for
crimes against chastity must be given prior to the institution thereof. Pardon
or consent given after the institution of criminal action for private crime
does not extinguish criminal liability (People v. Miranda, G.R. No. 38171,
October 6, 1932; People v. Infante, G.R. No. L-36270, August 31, 1932).
Pardon or consent is not a ground for the dismissal of the criminal case once
the action has been instituted. The prosecution of the case continues even if
the offended party pardons the offender after the case has been instituted.
(People v. Alcante, supra) The reason for this rule is that the true aggrieved
party in a criminal prosecution is the People of the Philippines. Once filed,
control of the prosecution for a crime against chastity is removed from the
offended party's hands. (People v. Manhuyod, G.R. No. 124676, May 20, 1998) and
any change of heart by the victim will not affect the state's right to
vindicate the atrocity committed against itself. (People v. Dollano, Jr.,
supra)
\

Question No. 12 suggested answer: No. The Mayor and those who followed his
order are not criminally liable. Under the Revised Penal Code, any person who
acts in the fulfillment of a duty shall not be criminally liable. ( par. 5,
art. 11 rpc) Here, the mayor’s decision and order to destroy and bulldoze three
ancestral houses which are on the path of the fire was done in order that the
fire cannot cross the commercial center to save other properties. Hence, it may
be considered as part of their legal duties as public officers. Thus, the mayor
and those who followed his order are not criminally liable.

NO. The defamatory charge against General Alan regarding an anomalous

transaction being investigated by the Senate is protected by the privileged
communication. Hence, it does neither constitute libel nor unlawful libelous
aggression for purposes of defensive libel. Hence, General Alan cannot invoke
justifying circumstance of defense of honor for making defamatory statement
against Senator Ano since the element of unlawful libelous aggression is not
present. General Alan’s imputations against Senator Alan were neither made
privately nor officially; hence, they are not qualified privileged
communication under Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code. In defensive libel,
the means employed by the accused must be reasonably necessary to restore his
ruined reputation or honor and not just to retaliate by ruining also the
reputation of the aggressor. Here, General Alan published said articles upon
Senator Ano, imputing immorality, unchastity, dishonesty and criminality which
were not fair answers to Senator Ano's lambaste and were absolutely unrelated
to his imputations upon him. Retaliation or vindictiveness can hardly be a
basis of self-defense. The answering of libel may be justified, if it is
adequate; and it is inadequate when the answer is unnecessarily scurrilous.
(People v. Rayo, C.A., 53 O.G. 8618)

NO. The defamatory charge against General Alan regarding an anomalous transaction being
investigated by the Senate is protected by the privileged communication. Hence, it does
neither constitute libel nor unlawful libelous aggression for purposes of defensive
libel. Hence, General Alan cannot invoke justifying circumstance of defense of honor for
making defamatory statement against Senator Ano since the element of unlawful libelous
aggression is not present. General Alan’s imputations against Senator Alan were neither
made privately nor officially; hence, they are not qualified privileged communication
under Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code. In defensive libel, the means employed by
the accused must be reasonably necessary to restore his ruined reputation or honor and
not just to retaliate by ruining also the reputation of the aggressor. Here, General Alan
published said articles upon Senator Ano, imputing immorality, unchastity, dishonesty and
criminality which were not fair answers to Senator Ano's lambaste and were absolutely
unrelated to his imputations upon him. Retaliation or vindictiveness can hardly be a
basis of self-defense. The answering of libel may be justified, if it is adequate; and it
is inadequate when the answer is unnecessarily scurrilous. (People v. Rayo, C.A., 53 O.G.
8618)

#5. The crime committed is Qualified Theft. The RPC provides that Qualified Theft is
committed when a person with grave abuse of confidence unlawfully takes property without
force and violence. Also, Theft is committed in its consummated stage the moment a person
retains possession belonging to another. Here, Tessie being a salesgirl at Watson gravely
abuse her confidence, when she unlawfully takes the lipstick and perfume.