1. What is the criminal liability of Carlos?, If any? Explain.

In the part of Carlos, it happened to be an honest mistake of act. His act of firing the rear
gear of his car is voluntary but not intentional. He happened to save his car from being carnapped
by Paolo (a thief). In this sense, Carlos acted in good faith where it applies to the maxim “actus non
facit reum, nisi mens sit rea”. Thus, the act is voluntarily free and intelligent as it implies non-
criminal intent.

What is the criminal liability of Paolo?, If any? Explain.

In the part of Paolo, he committed a felony by means of deceit (dolo). Of which this act is
considered as intentional felony. He drove away the car of Carlos intentionally even if Carlos is
trying to stop him from straying away. From which this act is being implied to as crimes mala in se
where intent is governed. Thus, the act is presumed from the commission of an unlawful act as it
has been identified in Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code.

2. What is the criminal liability of Eman? If any? Explain.

Eman didn’t shown criminal liability. Eman had made an act as he surrendered a
lost/missing bag containing identification cards and a diamond ring to the nearest police station to
seek help in finding the owner of the lost/missing belongings. Even if PO1 Melvin asked him to do
such wrongful act, he never agreed upon to said act. In that sense, he is not liable to any criminal
act.

What is the criminal liability of PO1 Melvin? If any? Explain.

In the side of PO1 Melvin, there is a criminal liability. Getting the diamond ring, of which he
doesn’t owned, and placing it to a pawnshop and pawned the said ring. That intent alone is
considered as a criminal act or felony. And this falls on a consummated felony where the necessary
elements have been executed and s accomplished- this constitute then a violation of the law. PO1
Melvin’s act of pawning the diamond ring is an execution of Theft and Robbery. The crime is
consummated the moment PO1 Melvin gets hold of the thing taken even if it were more or less
temporarily.

3. What are instances where proof of motive is not essential or required to justify conviction of the
accused?

For instances, if the evidence indicates that the defendant has a motive to commit the crime
alleged, that is a situation you may want to view as likely to support a guilty verdict. In the other
hand, if the evidence shows that the defendant acted without malice in committing the crime
charged, you might want to take that as evidence that the defendant is not guilty of the crime
charged.

4. Distinguish malum in se from malum prohibitum.

Malum in se ("That which is wrong in itself”) is an act that is objectively unethical, regardless of
whether it is prohibited by statute. Adultery, robbery, and murder are only a few examples. On the
other hand, Malum prohibitum ("That which is wrong because it is prohibited") is an act that is
unethical because it is unlawful, rather than being immoral because it is illegal.

5. Is CD criminally liable?

Yes. As long as the effects of his felonious act are direct, inevitable, and reasonable, he is
criminally liable for all of them, whether foreseen or unforeseen, intended or unintended. While CD
is the stepfather of FEL, whose property he burned, he is criminally liable because such a
relationship does not exclude a person from criminal liability in the crime of arson, but only in the
crimes of robbery, swindling, or estafa, and malicious mischief (Article 332, Revised Penal Code).
CD committed arson, as described by Pres. Decree No. 1613 (the new Arson Law), which punishes
anybody who burns or sets fire to another's property (Section 1 of Pres. Decree No. 1613).