Janine Blaize Caniw

Criminal Law Review

Midterm Exam: October 19, 2020

1. X went to Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) in Pasay City and boarded an airship of
the Philippine Airlines destined for the U.S. As the airship passes the Pacific Ocean, X killed Y,
a fellow passenger. Which court can try the case of murder committed by X, is it the Philippine
Courts or the U.S. Courts? (5)

The Philippine courts should try the case.

Since the territoriality principle cannot be applied as the case was committed when the
plane passed the Pacific Ocean, the place where the airship was registered shall have jurisdiction
over the crime, which in this case, the Philippines.

Also, our law provides that a crime committed in a Philippine airship shall be tried in the
Philippines.

2. Four culprits, all armed with firearms and with intent to kill, went to the intended victim’s house
and after having pinpointed the latter’s bedroom, all four fired at and riddled said room with
bullets, thinking that the intended victim was already there as it was about 10:00 in the evening.
It so happened that the intended victim did not come home on the evening and so was not in her
bedroom at that time. Was it an impossible crime or attempted murder? (5)

This is an impossible crime.

The Supreme Court in the case of Intod vs. CA involving similar facts held that in case
where a group of people fired at and riddled a room with bullets and it happened that the
intended victim is not around, the crime committed is an impossible crime. This is because the
crime of murder would have been committed which is against person had it not for the
impossibility of its accomplishment due to ineffective or ineffectual means.

In this case, since there was no person around when they fired the bullet, it is impossible
to accomplish or commit the crime.

3. The single act of A in firing a shot caused the death of two persons, arising from one bullet, who
were standing on the line of the direction of the bullet. Is A liable for two separate crimes of
homicide? Explain. (5)

Yes, A is liable for two separate crimes of homicide.

In a case involving similar facts, the Supreme Court has held that applying the rule on
single criminal intent or single criminal impulse, the single act of firing a shot which caused the
death of two persons shall make the perpetrator liable for separate crimes. The perpetrator shall
be liable for the crimes committed as a result of the single act. (People vs. Desierto)

4. Juan and Arturo devised a plan to murder Joel. In a narrow alley near Joel's house, Juan will hide
behind the big lamppost and shoot Joel when the latter passes through on his way to work.
Arturo will come from the other end of the alley and simultaneously shoot Joel from behind. On
the appointed day, Arturo was apprehended by the authorities before reaching the alley. When
Juan shot Joel as planned, he was unaware that Arturo was arrested earlier. Discuss the criminal
liability of Arturo, if any. (5)

Arturo shall be held criminally liable for the resulting crime of the act of Juan be that a
serious physical injury, murder, or homicide as the case maybe. This is because of the existence

1
 of a conspiracy between Juan and Arturo for the commission of the crime. The fact that Arturo
did not actually participate in the commission of the crime will not negate his criminal
responsibility since he is a co-conspirator and it has been consistently held by the Supreme Court
that the act of a conspirator shall be considered as the act of all conspirators.

5. Distinguish between an accomplice and a conspirator. (5)

As to participation, an accomplice participates in the commission of a crime after it has been

decided upon, whereas a conspirator takes part in the planning of the perpetration of the crime until
its commission.

As to the penalty imposable, an accomplice is entitled to a penalty which is one degree lower
with the penalty imposed upon the principal while a conspirator suffers the same penalty with that of
other conspirators regardless of the degree of his participation in the commission of the crime.

6. Explain the following concepts:

a. Recidivist is a person who, at the time of his conviction of a crime, he has been
previously convicted by final judgment with a crime which is embraced in the same title
of the Revised Penal Code.

b. Quasi-recidivist is a person, who after having been convicted of a final judgment shall
commit a new felony before beginning to serve such sentence or while serving the same.
It is not necessary that both crimes are embraced in the same title of the code, but for the
second crime, it is a condition sine qua non that the crime is punishable under the
Revised Penal Code.

c. Reiteracion is a circumstance where the offender at the time of the trial of his offense has
been previously served a sentence to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty
than that attached by law to a second offense.

d. Habitual delinquency is a circumstance where in a period of 10 years from the date of the
release or last conviction of an accused of the crimes of serious physical injuries, theft,
robbery, estafa, less serious physical injuries, and falsification, he will again commit a
crime or found guilty of such crimes for the third time or oftener.

7. What are the requisites of Self Defense as a justifying circumstance? What is the effect if only
two of the requisites of self-defense are present? Explain. (5)
The requisites of Self Defense as a justifying circumstance are:
a. Unlawful aggression;
b. Reasonable means employed to repel the aggression; and
c. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person invoking the defense.

If there are only two requisites of self-defense which are present, such will constitute as
an incomplete self-defense which is considered as a privileged mitigating circumstance.

8. During a concert of Gary V. and in order to prevent the crowd from rushing to the stage, Rafael
Padilla {a security guard} pointed his gun at the onrush of people. When the crowd still pushed
forward, Rafael fired his gun into air to scare them off. However, the bullet hit one of the metal
roof supports, ricocheted and then hit one of the stage crew members, causing injuries which
resulted in the latter’s confinement in a hospital for twelve days. What crime/s did Rafael
commit? Explain your answer. (5)

Rafael committed the crime of reckless imprudence resulting in less serious physical
injuries.

Rafael cannot be convicted of illegal discharge of firearms since his intention was to
ward off the unruly crowd and it was not aimed at a particular person. Likewise, he cannot be

2
 convicted of alarms and scandal for when he fired his gun, it was not his intention to cause alarm
to the public, but just to scare of the people.

However, for his failure to exercise reasonable diligence in firing his gun by not
considering that upon firing, somebody must be hit, he shall be held liable for reckless
imprudence. Considering that the injury of the stage crew caused him to be hospitalized for
twelve days, such will constitute as less serious physical injuries. Utmost, Rafael is liable for
reckless imprudence resulting in less serious physical injuries.

9. Macky, a security guard, arrived home late one night after rendering overtime. He was shocked
to see Joy, his wife, and Ken, his best friend, in the act of having sexual intercourse. Macky
pulled out his service gun and shot and killed Ken. The court found that Ken died under
exceptional circumtances and exonerated Macky of murder but sentenced him to destierro,
conformably with Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code. The court also ordered Macky to pay
indemnity to the heirs of the victim in the amount of P50,000. Did the court correctly order
Macky to pay indemnity even though he was exonerated of murder? Explain your answer. (5)

No, the court did not correctly order Macky to pay indemnity under the circumstances.

Under the law, the basis of paying an indemnity is the criminal liability of the accused.
Under Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code, a death under exceptional circumstances is a
defense of an accused by which, he will not incur a criminal liability.

In the case at bar, Macky is not criminally liable, so there will be no basis in the award of
the indemnity to be paid to the heirs of the victim.

10. Rigoberto gate-crashed the 71st birthday party of Judge Lorenzo. Armed with a piece of wood
commonly known as dos por dos, Rigoberto hit Judge Lorenzo on the back, causing the latter’s
hospitalization for 30 days. Upon investigation, it appeared that Rigoberto had a grudge against
Judge Lorenzo who, two years earlier, had cited Rigoberto in contempt and ordered his
imprisonment for three (3) days. What crime/s did Rigoberto commit? Explain your answer.
(5%)

Rigoberto is liable for the crime of serious physical injuries.

Rigoberto cannot be held liable for direct assault even though the act of Rigoberto against
Judge Lorenzo is connected with his duty as a judge. This is because at the time of the
commission of the crime, Judge Lorenzo already retired from service since he is already 71 years
old.

Since the act of hitting Judge Lorenzo caused him to be hospitalized for 30 days, such
crime shall constitute serious physical injuries as provided under the Revised Penal Code.

11. To secure the release of his brother Willy, a detention prisoner, and his cousin Vincent, who is
serving sentence for homicide, Chito asked the RTC Branch Clerk of Court to issue an Order
which would allow the two prisoners to be brought out of jail. At first, the Clerk refused, but
when Chito gave her P50,000.00, she consented. She then prepared an Order requiring the
appearance in court of Willy and Vincent, ostensibly as witnesses in a pending case. She forged
the judge’s signature, and delivered the Order to the jail warden who, in turn, allowed Willy and
Vincent to go out of jail in the company of an armed escort, Edwin. Chito also gave Edwin
P50,000.00 to leave the two inmates unguarded for three minutes and provide them with an
opportunity to escape. Thus, Willy and Vincent were able to escape. What crime or crimes, if
any, had been committed by Chito, Willy, Vincent, and the Branch Clerk of Court? Explain your
answer. (5%)

As regards Chito, he shall be held liable for two counts of corruption of public officials for
giving a money to the Clerk of Court and Jail warden. He is also liable as principal by

3
 inducement for the crime of falsification of public document for inducing the Clerk of Court to
draft a fake order. In addition to, he shall also be held liable as principal by inducement for the
crime of Delivery of a prisoner from jail.

With regard to Willy, he shall be held liable for the crime of principal by direct participation
for the crime of Delivery of a prisoner from jail.

With respect to Vincent, he is liable for evasion of service of sentence since he is currently
serving sentence for homicide. He is likewise liable as principal by direct participation in the
crime of Delivery of Prisoner from Jail.

The Branch Clerk of Court should be convicted with the crimes of Falsification of Public
Document for making a fake order. She is also liable for Direct Bribery for accepting the money
from Chito in consideration of a favor. In addition to, she is also guilty as a principal by
indispensable cooperation for the crime of Delivery of Prisoner from Jail.

12. Wenceslao and Loretta were staying in the same boarding house, occupying different rooms.
One late evening, when everyone in the house was asleep, Wenceslao entered Loretta’s room
with the use of a picklock. Then, with force and violence, Wenceslao ravished Loretta. After he
had satisfied his lust, Wenceslao stabbed Loretta to death and, before leaving the room, took her
jewelry. Wenceslao was charged with separate informations for Rape and Murder qualified by
Evident Premeditation. Is the charge proper? Explain. (5%)

No, the charge with separate informations for rape and murder will not proper.

The crime committed was Rape with Homicide. Under the Revised Penal Code, the crime
of rape with homicide is committed when the accused with lewd design, successfully had a
carnal knowledge with a woman using force and violence and in connection with that carnal
knowledge, a person was killed.

In this case, the main purpose of Wenceslao was to have a carnal knowledge with
Loretta, so the crime of rape was committed and since Loretta was murdered in connection with
the rape, a complex crime of rape with homicide was committed. It is of no moment that the
killing of Loreta constituted murder since the word homicide in this special complex crime is a
generic term which embraces murder.

The possession of picklock is considered as a crime by itself and shall be treated as a

separate crime.

13. What are the grounds for total extinguishment of criminal liability. (5%)

The grounds for total extinguishment of criminal liability are:

a. Death of the accused;

b. When the court finds the accused as not guilty or innocent;

c. In cases of crimes against chastity, when the accused was pardoned by the victim;

d. In cases where the accused is granted an amnesty; and

e. In cases of marital rape, by the express pardon of the wife.

14. Baldo killed Conrad in a dark corner, at midnight, on January 2, 1960. Dominador witnessed the
entire incident, but he was so scared to tell the authorities about it. On January 2, 1970,

4
 Dominador, bothered by his conscience, reported the matter to the police. After investigation, the
police finally arrested Baldo on January 6, 1980. Charged in court, Baldo claims that the crime
he committed had already prescribed. Is Baldo’s contention correct? Explain. (5%)

No, Baldo’s contention is not correct.

Under the Revised Penal Code, prescription of a crime commences to run at the time of
its commission. However, in cases where the crime was committed clandestinely, the
prescription of the crime only starts to run upon discovery of the crime by the authorities.

In this case, the crime was only discovered by the authorities when Baldo reported the
commission of the crime on January 2, 1970 and this was the date when the crime commenced to
run. Since the crime committed was murder which is punishable with Reclusion Perpetua, the
crime will prescribe within 20 years.

Since only ten (10) years had passed from the time the crime was discovered by the
authorities in 1980 when Baldo was charged, the crime has not yet prescribed.

15. Charlie was charged for the qualified rape of AAA. The Information alleged that AAA was 14
years old at the time the crime was committed and that Charlie was AAA's stepfather. The
presentation of AAA's birth certificate during the trial duly established the following: (1) that
AAA was indeed 14 years old at the time of the rape; and (2) that AAA's mother is BBB and her
father was the late CCC. BBB and Charlie only became live-in partners after CCC's death and
Charlie was the godfather of AAA. The RTC found Charlie guilty of qualified rape. On appeal,
the Court of Appeals convicted Charlie of simple rape. Is the ruling of the Court of Appeals
correct? (5%)

The ruling of the Court of Appeals is not correct.

It has been consistently held by the Supreme Court in litany of cases that on appeal the
appellate court cannot just disregard the findings of the trial court regarding the presence of
aggravating circumstances alleged in the complaint. Furthermore, in crimes of rape, the
relationship between a stepfather and a stepdaughter is an aggravating circumstance.

In this case, it was sufficiently proven that Charlie was the stepfather and in fact the
godfather of AAA and such relationship will elevate the crime of rape to qualified rape. Due to
these reasons, the Court of Appeals was not correct when it convicted Charlie of simple rape.