Law 103 (Criminal Law I) - Section 3

Midterm Examination
November 20, 2022
1:00 - 3:00 p.m.

INSTRUCTIONS

1. Prepare a notebook and a ballpen. Download a FastScanner

application on your cellphone.
2. Read each question very carefully and write your answers in your
notebook in the same order as the questions. Write your answers only on the front
page of every sheet. Note well the allocated percentage points for each
question or sub-question. In your answers, use the numbering system in the
questionnaire.
3. Answer the questions legibly, clearly, and concisely. Start each answer
on a separate page. An answer to a sub-question under the same number may
be written continuously on the same page and the immediately succeeding
pages until completed.
4. Your answer should demonstrate your ability to analyze the facts, apply
the pertinent laws and jurisprudence, and arrive at a sound or logical
conclusion. Always support your answer with the pertinent laws, rules, and/or
jurisprudence.
5. A mere “yes” or “no” answer without any corresponding explanation or
discussion will not be given any credit. Thus, always briefly but fully explain your
answers even if the question does not expressly ask for an explanation. Do not
rewrite or repeat the question on your notebook.
6. Observe honesty and good faith in answering the questions. Do not
copy-paste, or let other people answer the questions for you, in the hope of
getting a good mark for this examination. Cheating is strictly prohibited and shall
be dealt with accordingly.
7. Do not write your name or any extraneous note/s or distinctive
marking/s on your notebook that can serve as an identifying mark/s (such as
names that are not in the given questions, prayers, or private notes to your
professor). Only your Student ID Number must appear in your notebook. Writing,
leaving, or making any distinguishing or identifying mark is considered cheating.
8. Turn on your camera during the examination. Position it strategically so
that it captures your movements while you are answering the questions. Make
sure to clear your table.
9. The examination will start at exactly 1:00 pm and will end at exactly 3:00
pm. Log in 5 minutes before the examination so you can utilize the whole 2 hours
in answering. A 10-minute period will be given for you to be able to scan your
answers and do the submission thereof in pdf format. This is the only time that
you are allowed to use your cellphone. Submissions made beyond said period
(3:10 pm) shall not be accepted.
 10. The file, which you are going to submit, must be named as follows:
“Crim1 – Student ID No. _________”.

-Atty. SMB

“Plan for what is difficult while it is easy; do what is great while it is small. The most difficult things in the world
must be done while they are still easy; the greatest things in the world must be done while they are still
small. For this reason, sages never do what is “great”, and this is why they can achieve greatness.” - Sun
Tzu, Art of War
1. Dion and Talia were spouses. Dion always came home drunk since he lost
his job a couple of months ago. Talia had gotten used to the verbal abuse
from Dion. One night, in addition to the usual verbal abuse, Dion beat up
Talia. The next morning, Dion saw the injury that he had inflicted upon
Talia and promised her that he would stop drinking and never beat her
again. However, Dion did not make good on his promise. Just after one
week, he started drinking again. Talia once more endured the usual
verbal abuse. Afraid that he might beat her up again, Talia stabbed Dion
with a kitchen knife while he was passed out from imbibing too much
alcohol. Talia was charged with the crime of parricide. May Talia invoke
the defense of Battered Woman Syndrome to free herself from criminal
liability? Explain. (10 pts.)

2. Clint, with intent to kill, pulled the trigger of a gun with live bullets at Aldous,
and, consequently, Aldous sustained non-mortal wounds. Clint failed to
shoot further the victim to inflict a mortal wound since he was arrested by
a police officer. He was charged with frustrated homicide, and, later, he
was found guilty thereof. Clint appealed the decision saying he could
only be liable for impossible crime because of the impossibility of
accomplishment of killing. Is Clint’s contention tenable? Explain. (10 pts.)

3. A, a wealthy man, went out of town for a wellness escapade. One night,
while A was on a vacation, B, a street beggar forcibly entered A’s house
to look for some food to eat. After eating, B glanced upon a Rolex watch
placed in the dining table. Amazed by the beauty of said watch, B wore
it. Thereafter, he returned the watch to where it was placed. On his way
out, B saw a gold necklace placed on the table in the living room.
Mesmerized by its beauty, B wore said necklace, but forgot to put it back
on the table. B was charged with robbery for taking away A’s gold
necklace. On arraignment, B pleaded not guilty to the offense charged.
On trial, he claimed that he did not intend to take away A’s gold
necklace, and that there was no intent to gain on his part; thus, he could
not be made liable for robbery. Is B correct? Explain. (10 pts.)
4. Mars Ravelos, a Filipino, had a physical fight with Marvel Loss, an American
diplomat, within the premises of the US Embassy in Manila. In the course of
their fight, Mars killed Marvel. Wonder Woman, Marvel’s wife, filed a
complaint-affidavit for homicide against Mars in the Office of the City
Prosecutor of Manila. Mars filed a counter-affidavit, praying among
others, for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the Office of
the City Prosecutor of Manila does not have jurisdiction of the case.

a. If you were the prosecutor assigned to resolve the complaint, would

you dismiss it? Explain. (10 pts.)
b. Suppose that it was Marvel who killed Mars, and that it was Darna,
Mars’ wife, who filed a case against Marvel, would your answer be
the same? (10 pts.)
5. Russia and Ukraine are high school best friends. One time, during their high
school reunion, Russia learned that Ukraine is seeing China, Russia’s
girlfriend. Furious, Russia tried to punch Ukraine, but instead of hitting
Ukraine, he hit US. Having sustained injuries, US filed a case against Russia
before the Prosecutor’s Office. Russia, in his counter-affidavit, prayed for
the dismissal of the case on the ground of lack of probable cause, saying
that he did not intend to injure US. He contends that a person cannot
commit a crime if he has no intent to do so.
a. Rule on the contention of Russia. (10 pts.)
b. Suppose Russia only tried to defend himself from Ukraine who
punched him first, would your answer be the same? Explain. (10
pts.)

6. Gord, who was being chased by Hayabusa, was stabbed by the latter,
and as Gord parried the blow, he was wounded on the left hand. After
being stabbed by Hayabusa, Gord still tried to run farther. But unluckily, his
foot got caught in a vine on the ground and he fell, whereupon out of
nowhere, Harley arrived and stabbed Gord near his anus while he was
lying forward in the ground. Harley was followed by Vale, who stabbed
Gord on the left breast and upper part of the left arm. Gord stood up
slowly and walked zigzagly toward the store, and when he arrived in front
of the store, he fell on the ground.
a. Who is criminally liable for the death of Gord? (10 pts.)
b. Suppose there was a prior agreement between and among all of
them to kill Gord, and Clint, the mastermind, did not appear in the
scene of the crime. Would he be equally liable with all the others
who appeared in the scene of the crime and participated in the
accomplishment of said crime? (10 pts.)
 c. Suppose that when Gord fell on the ground, another person,
Franco, came, and without any knowledge that Gord is already
dead, stabbed Gord multiple times. Would he also be equally liable
with the others? (10 pts.)

7. In problem #5, suppose that Russia thought of killing Ukraine. To execute

his plan, he waited for Ukraine in the dark portion of the parking area.
After a few minutes, he saw a man walking toward the area where
Ukraine’s car is parked. Without any hesitation, Russia shot the man using
his pistol. The man turned out to be US, who, due to timely medical
intervention, was saved from dying. Thereafter, a case for frustrated
murder was filed against Russia. On trial, Russia’s attorney prayed for the
lowering of his criminal liability, contending, among others, that Russia’s
lack of intent to kill US is an extenuating circumstance.
a. If you were the judge, how would you rule on Russia’s contention?
(5 pts.)
b. Suppose US died, would your answer be the same? (5 pts.) c.
Suppose the man was neither Ukraine nor US but the school principal
who happened to be Russia’s father, and he died, would your
answer still be the same? (5 pts.)
--- NOTHING FOLLOWS ---