1.

The criminal liability of Josh is Homicide.

The Revised Penal code provides that Homicide is committed by any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article
246, shall kill another, without the attendance of any circumstances enumerated in next preceding article, shall be deemed
guilty of homicide and be punished by reclusion temporal.

In the instant case, Josh pushed Edgar strongly when the latter rushed to rescue his mother which caused Edgar to fall and hit
his head to the floor and the reason why he died after 2 days of being hospitalized. This could not be parricide as Edgar is
illegitimate son of Joan who is Josh’s live-in partner. Under the RPC, to be held guilty of Parricide the deceased must be the
father, mother or child whether legitimate or illegitimate. There’s no legal ties between Josh and Edgar. Thus, the crime
committed could not constitute a Parricide but homicide.

2.
A. No. The Police Officer is not correct in charging Macky with the crime of Parricide.

According to the Revised Penal Code that Parricide is committed by any person who shall kill his father, mother, or
whether legitimate or illegitimate, or any of his legitimate ascendants or descendants, or his spouse.
In the case at bar, the crime committed by Macky is only homicide. It cannot be parricide as Nono is an illegitimate grandfather
of Macky. Thus, the crime that should charge to macky is homicide and not parricide.

B. Yes, I will have the same answer. To be held guilty of Parricide for killing an ascendants or descendants, the
relationship must be legitimate. If Macky was an adopted child, still he is not considered as a legitimate grandson of
Nono.

3.
The crime committed by a person who has killed his 3 –day old illegitimate child is parricide.
According to the revised penal code, any person shall be guilty of infanticide who shall kill his child less than 3 days of age.
Otherwise, he shall be guilty of parricide.

4. Hammer will be guilty of the crime of Unintentional Abortion and violation of RA 9262 or anti-violence act against Women
and their children Act of 2004.

The revised penal code punished and penalized any person who shall cause an abortion by violence, but unintentional. It also
punished the any act or a series of acts committed by any person against a woman who is his wife, former wife, or a against a
woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship.

In the instant case, Hammer violated the RA 9262 or the Anti-violence act against women and their children when he turned
violent and assaulted his pregnant wife Melly. He is also guilty of the crime of Unintentional Abortion because of his action of
assaulting Melly that cause the latter to fell and hit her back to the wooden table before her body hit the floor which caused the
death of the fetus inside her womb.

5. There will be no crime to be charge against the wife as she did not commit a felony. She shall be directly
sentenced to distierro.

This case falls within the circumstances mentioned in Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code that any legally married
person,who having surprised his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person, shall kill any
of them or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any serious physical injury, shall
suffer the penalty of destierro.

In the instant case, the killing of husband was caused by the justified burst of passion of the accused when she
caught her husband in the act of sexual intercourse with his paramour inside their bedroom. This constitute that
because of what she saw, she got the firearm and fired at the two which killed her husband.

6.