A. I will qualify my answer.

If it is alleged and established that A and B are

related to each other either as spouses, descendants, ascendants, legitimate,
adopted, and natural brothers or sisters or relatives of affinity within the same
degree, such will serve as an exempting circumstance. In addition, it should also
be established that they are living together. In such instance, A will not be
liable for the crime of theft.

However, if there is no allegation of relationship between the parties, A will be

liable for the crime of theft.

B. Yes, George can be tried before the Philippine courts.

Under the law and jurisprudence, Philippines adhere to the English rule whereby it
is the Philippines which shall have jurisdiction in trying the criminal action when
a crime happens in a merchant vessel docked in the Philippine territory unless the
act only involves internal management conflict of the vessel.

In the case at bar, the killing of Michael no longer contemplates internal

management issues of the merchant vessel. Hence, Philippine courts have
jurisdiction to try such case pursuant to the English Rule.

Malou Loy-on can raise the justifying circumstance of lawful exercise of a right.

As enshrined under the Constitution, no one can be compelled to marry a person

against his or her will. Such is contrary to the liberties enshrined under the
Constitution. Moreover, there is no law penalizing a person from failing to attend
a wedding. Hence, Maluo Loy-on is only lawfully exercising her right to choose her
husband-to-be.

However, under the Civil Code, a person is mandated to indemnify a person if there
is already actual wedding expenses incurred by the other party.

In conspiracy as a crime, the mere act of conspiring or agreeing to commit a

certain crime is already punishable. Even though no overt act has yet been
committed, the law already sanctions and penalized such act. Conspiracy to commit
treason is an example for such crime. In contrast with conspiracy as a manner of
incurring criminal liability, it requires that the crime agreed upon to be
committed must be actually executed by the conspirators. Otherwise, such conspiracy
is not punishable. An example of such is conspiracy to commit murder. If there is
no murder committed, the act of conspiring cannot be penalized.

An impossible crime is an act which could have been a crime against persons or
property were it not for the inherent impossibility of the act to constitute as a
crime or were it not for the inadequate means employed by the accused. Such is
being punished in order to discourage lawlessness.

Aberratio ictus or "mistake in the blow" is a circumstance whereby an accused

inflicted injury to a person who is not his intended victim. In contrast with error
in personae where the injury is inflicted to an unintended victim, in aberratio
ictus, the intended victim is present in the crime scene. This kind of circumstance
will result to a complex crime if warranted based on the facts of the case.

The concept of extra-territorial application of criminal law is an exception to one

of the main principles of criminal law which is Territoriality. Under the law,
Philippine courts can only have jurisdiction of a crime if such has been committed
within the Philippine territory. However, as enumerated under Art. 2 of the Revised
Penal Code and as supplied by some special laws, there are exceptions to the
principle of territorial application of criminal law. Some of these are the
following:

1. When a crime has been committed inside a Philippine ship or airship;

2. When a crime has been committed by a public officer or employee of the
Philippines in the exercise of his public functions;
3. When a crime has been committed inside Philippine embassies;
4.

No, Jimmy is not guilty of an impossible crime. Rather, he is guilty for the crime
of theft.

Under Art. 4 of the Revised Penal Code, a person is penalized for committing an act
which could have been a crime against person or property were it not for the
inherent impossibility of the act or that the means employed was inadequate or
insufficient.

In the present case, the crime of theft is consummated when Jimmy picked the pocket
of Noli without the latter's consent and without employing violence or force
against Noli. Moreover, intent to gain was established when Jimmy acquired the
wallet of Noli and opened it albeit no money was found. Under the law, all of the
element of theft was established. Hence, there can be no impossible crime since
there is no inherent impossibility of committing such crime nor was there
insufficient means to commit such act.

No, C is not liable.

Under Art. 11 of the Revised Penal Code, defense of relatives is considered as a

justifying circumstance provided the following elements are present:

1. There must be unlawful aggression committed by the victim;

2. If there be sufficient provocation by the person being defended, such must not
come from the offending party; and
3. The means employed must be reasonable to prevent or repel the unlawful
aggression.

In the case at bar, all of the above-mentioned requisites are present. There was
unlawful aggression on the part of B since his act of defending himself has already
ceased when A had already fell on the ground. The act of B of attempting to act A
is no longer lawful. As to the existence of provocation, although such is
sufficient, C did not contribute to such act. Lastly, as to the means employed,
such is considered reasonable since the act of B in attempting to act A can only be
repelled by shooting B given the distance of C to the scene of the crime. Hence, C
is justified for shooting B and is not liable for there is a valid defense of
relatives in the present case.

The following are the principles on how penal laws are construed:

1. Doctrine of pro reo - When in doubt, the doubt should be resolved in favor of
the accused. This is in consonance with the constitutional presumption of innocence
of the accused.

2. Equipoise Rule - Under this principle, if the evidence of the two parties is
evenly balanced, the scale of justice should be tilted in favor of the accused.

3. Presumption of innocence -
4. Doubt as to the degree of participation, milder responsibility is imposed - When
there is doubt as to the degree of participation of the accused, the milder
responsibility should be imposed as such is favorable to the accused.

5. Retroactive application if favorable to the accused - If a penal law is

favorable to the accused, it shall be given retroactive application provided that
the accused is not a habitual delinquent.

The following are the limitations on the power of Congress to enact penal laws:

1. Bill of Attainder - Such is not allowed since it has the effect of imposing a
penalty to the accused without undergoing trial.
2. Ex post facto law - Such is not allowed for it is prejudicial to the rights of
the accused.
3.

1) I will qualify my answer. Bruce and Kaye At can be charged for the crime of
concubinage in the Philippines since the crime of concubinage can be considered a
continuing crime. However, Bruce and Kaye At cannot be prosecuted for such crime
given that the Philippine courts cannot acquire jurisdiction over the person of
Bruce and Kaye At.

2) Lorna's proper course of action is to await for the return of her husband in the
Philippines. Since jurisdiction over the person of her husband and concubine cannot
be attained due to their absence in the Philippines, the criminal case will not be
prosecuted in the absence of the intended accused. Thus, upon the return of her
husband and the concubine, she should now file the complaint before the fiscal. If
probable cause is then found by the judge upon the filing of the information, a
warrant of arrest will now be issued against her husband and the concubine. Upon
the arrest of her husband and concubine, the case can now be prosecuted.

No, A is not entitled to the justifying circumstance of self-defense.

Under the law, in order for self-defense to be appreciated, the following elements
must be present:

1. There should be unlawful aggression by the offended party;

2. There should be lack of sufficient provocation by the offender; and
3. The means employed by the offender in repelling the unlawful aggression be
reasonable.

In the case at bar, there was no unlawful aggression committed by X. In fact, X

assisted A upon finding that A was bleeding. As to the existence of provocation,
the alteration between X and A prior to the stabbing cannot be considered as
sufficient. Lastly, the means employed by A is not reasonable and even unlawful
given that there was no aggression committed by X against A. Hence, A is not
entitled to the justifying circumstance of self-defense.