CRIMINAL LAW 1

1. It is the doctrine that a court, in construing an ambiguous criminal statute that sets out
multiple or inconsistent punishments, should resolve the ambiguity in favor of the more lenient
punishment.

2. Frustrated Murder.

As stated very well in RPC, Frustrated murder is judged by the severity of the wound. If the
victim’s injury was serious enough to inflict death if not for timely medical intervention, then it
can be deemed frustrated murder.

In this instance, there was an intent upon the part of the assailant to take the life of the person
attacked, which intent may be gathered from the circumstances surrounding the attack; in this
instance, the nature of the wounds, her shout and finally, that the victim did not die, was owing
to a chance or accident or reason independent of the criminal act performed.

Hence, Z is guilty of the crime Frustrated murder.

3.

4 . A. X alone should be held liable for the death of E. The object of conspiracy of Y and B was to
kill E only. Y, cannot be held criminally liable therefor. Y, although part of the conspiracy, he did
not participate in the execution of the crime by acts which directly tended towards the same
end.
B No. Treachery cannot be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance because the purported
attack was not sudden or unexpected

5. Yes. Z can invoke justifying circumstance of self-defense.

In Jurisprudence rule that, In order to invoke self-defense, certain conditions must be met such
as unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it, and
lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. There is unlawful
aggression when there is peril to one’s life or person. There must be actual and imminent
physical force or actual use of a weapon.

In this case, because Y was attempting to stab Z this resulted in his death, but the accused was
held NOT criminally liable because of self-defense. There is also a valid self-defense, if the
aggressor used any kind of weapon in threatening the accused and there is a lack of sufficient
provocation on the part of Z defending himself.

6. No.
Citing the rule in Jurisprudence, the juridical reason for appreciating this mitigating
circumstance is the implied recognition by the law of the weakness of human nature such that
an ordinary human being if sufficiently provoked would immediately retaliate in the unchristian
spirit of vindictive retribution.

But the circumstances of this case are such that the act of murder committed by the accused
could not reasonably be attributed to an immediate or proximate retaliatory action on his part
to vindicate what personally appeared to him as sufficient provocation in the form of an
violence or insulting remarks or misunderstanding allegedly uttered by the victim. In other
words, the remark was inadequate to stir or drive the accused to violence at the time it was
uttered and he had more than sufficient time to suppress his emotion over said remark if he
ever did resent it. 

Hence, the failure of O to immediately react to the supposed provocative actions remark
should not have considered the mitigating circumstance that sufficient provocation or
threat on the part of the deceased.

7. a. Guilty as an accomplice in the commission of Rape.

b. No. It cannot pass over Y, because Y is only an accomplice. Upon death of the accused
pending appeal of his conviction, the criminal action is extinguished in as much as there is no
longer a defendant to stand as the accused; the civil action instituted therein for recovery of
civil liability ex delicto is ipso facto extinguished, grounded as it is on the criminal.
c. Exemplary damages are also awarded as a part of the civil liability may be imposed when
the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. In addition, exemplary
damages may be awarded, not only in the presence of an aggravating circumstance, but also
where the circumstances of the case show the highly reprehensible or outrageous conduct of
the offender.

8. Anti Graft and Corrupt

(DI ko na ala mano pa? HAHAHHAHA)

9. The crime committed by X are two crimes (1) Homicide for the death of b and his daughter
and (2) the special complex crime of arson with homicide as provided in PD 1613 as amended
by PD 1744 for the burning of the house and the death of b and his daughter. The burning of
the house to conceal the killing of B and C is a separate crime. Hence, X should have been
charged with two (2) separate crimes, homicide and arson.

10. Yes. Y’s contention is not tenable. Single complaint only for every offense committed.