1997 Bar Exam

Only A is liable to the death of F and injury of G.

Under the Revised Penal Code, Conspiracy is defined when two or

more person agreed to the commission of a felony. And conspiracy can be
appreciated only to the person who was originally planned to be killed.

Here, there is no conspiracy between A, B, C and D, the group did

not come into agreement to kill F. Also, assuming that there is conspiracy
that will not be appreciated in favor of G because he was not included in
the original plan.

A alone should be held liable for the death of G. The object of the
conspiracy of A. B, C, and D was to kill F only. Since B, C, and D did not
know of the stabbing of G by A, they cannot be held criminally therefor. E,
the driver, cannot be also held liable for the death of G since the former
was completely unaware of said killing.

For the physical injuries of F, A, B and C. should be held liable

therefore. Even if it was only A who actually stabbed and caused physical
injuries to G, B and C are nonetheless liable for conspiring with A and for
contributing positive acts which led to the realization of a common criminal
intent. B positioned himself as a lookout, while C blocked F's escape. D,
however, although part of the conspiracy, cannot be held liable because he
left the scene before A could enter the house where the stabbing occurred.
Although he was earlier part of the conspiracy, he did not personally
participate in the execution of the crime by acts which directly tended
toward the same end (People vs. Tomoro, et al 44Phil. 38),

2008 Bar Exam

 No, Ricky is not criminally liable.

Under the Revised Penal Code, it defines conspiracy as an

agreement between two or more persons to commit felonies and decided to
commit it.

Here, the leader of the vigilante group is already decided to commit

the crime, he came to Ricky only to ask if anyone in the list is innocent so
that it will not be included in the liquidation. The criminal intent did not start
both from RIcky and the leader of the vigilante group. Also, there was no
agreement between the two. Hence, Ricky will not be held criminally liable.

No, there was no conspiracy between Ricky and the Commander of

the vigilante. Mere vouching for the honesty of the two (2) policemen in the
list cannot make him a co-conspirator for the killing. Ricky enjoys the
presumption of innocence.

2012 Bar Exam

Yes, Charlie commits the crime of impossible crime of murder.

Under the Revised Penal Code, it provides that the impossible crime
is committed if the person commits a crime against person or property but it
did not produce the result due to inadequacy of the means employed or
legal impossibility.

Here, the poison gave by Charlie to Brad is inadequate to produce

the killing of Brad. But Charlie has the intention to kill Brad by means of
poison. Hence, the impossible crime is committed.
 Charlie committed an impossible crime of murder. His act of mixing
the non- toxic powder with Brad‟s food, done with intent to kill, would have
constituted murder which is a crime against persons, had it not been for the
employment of a means which, unknown to him, is ineffectual (Art. 4, par.
2, RPC).

2004 Bar Exam

No, defense of AA will not prosper.

Under the Revised Penal Code, for the avoidance of greater evil to be
available as a defense it is necessary that the party did not commit unlawful
act. Also, for conspiracy to exist it is needed that the culprits have
community of design to kill the victim.

Here, there was an unlawful act because BB and CC were about to

kill FT and AA tried to prevent ST who are performing an act to defend FT
by grappling the gun in the possession of FT. There is no conspiracy in this
case because it was not shown that there was a community of design to kill
FT.

No, AA's defense will not prosper because obviously there was a
conspiracy among BB, CC and AA, such that the principle that when there
is a conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all, shall govern. The act of ST,
the victim's son, appears to be a legitimate defense of relatives; hence,
justified as a defense of his father against the unlawful aggression by BB
and CC. ST's act to defend his father's life, cannot be regarded as an evil
inasmuch as it is, in the eyes of the law, a lawful act. What AA did was to
stop a lawful defense, not greater evil, to allow BB and CC achieve their
criminal objective of stabbing FT.

1998 Bar Exam

 Arturo has no criminal liability.

In a case decided by the Supreme Court, although in conspiracy the

act of one is the act of all, but conspiracy is not committed when the co-
conspirators did not perform his duty to consummate the crime as
previously agreed upon.

Here, Arturo was not able to perform his duty as a co-conspirator

because he was arrested before he reached in the alley. Hence, Arturo did
not incur any criminal liability.

Arturo, being one of the two who devised the plan to murder Joel,
thereby becomes a co-principal by direct conspiracy. What is needed only
is an overt act and both will incur criminal liability. Arturo's liability as a
conspirator arose from his participation in jointly devising the criminal plan
with Juan, to kill Jose. And it was pursuant to that conspiracy that Juan
killed Joel. The conspiracy here is actual, not by inference only. The overt
act was done pursuant to that conspiracy whereof Arturo is co-conspirator.
There being a conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. Arturo, therefore,
should be liable as a co-conspirator but the penalty on him may be that of
an accomplice only (People vs. Nierra, 96 SCRA 1; People us. Medrano,
114 SCRA 335) because he was not able to actually participate in the
shooting of Joel, having been apprehended before reaching the place
where the crime was committed.

Arturo is not liable because he was not able to participate in the killing
of Joel. Conspiracy itself is not punishable unless expressly provided by
law and this is not true in the case of Murder. A co-conspirator must
perform an overt act pursuant to the conspiracy.