1.

Outraged when he caught his only son, Xerxes, smoking

marijuana, Xander punched the 17-year old minor, causing the
latter to loose a front tooth. The police investigator filed a
criminal complaint for serious physical injuries, aggravated by
relationship. Is the charge correct?

Yes, the charge is correct. The law provides that in serious physical injuries ,
relatives of the same level is always aggravating. In the case at bar, the father and
his son are both relatives in the same degree. And the criminal complaint is serious
physical injuries which should be aggravated due to their relationship as father and
son. Thus, the charge is correct.

2. Sam induced Tito to kill Wilson. Tito then induced Pedro to kill
Wilson. Pedro then induced Juan to kill Wilson. Juan shot
Wilson in the head, causing the latter's death. What is the
criminal liability, if any, of Sam and Tito?

The criminal liability of Sam is being the Principal while Tito is the accomplice for the
crime of murder.

3. Abner, Carlos and Efren decided to commit robbery. On their

way to the 7-11 store, Abner met his friend, Gary. Abner then
told Gary to serve as a look out, to which the latter acceded.
Gary then received Php 10,000.00 as his share of the loot. Gary
was charged and convicted as a co-conspirator. Was the
judgment correct?

Yes, the judgment is correct. The law provides that

accomplices have knowledge of the crime, cooperates with
the principal and providing aid towards the offender. In the
case at bar, Gary serve as a look out of Abner as the latter
commits robbery. In turn, Gary received P10,000.00 as his
share of the loot. Thus, judgement was correct.

4. Berto stole Diego's laptop and sold it to Fredo, who used it

during the bar entrance examinations. The police retrieved the
laptop from Fredo, who was charged as an accessory. Fredo
argued that he does not have any liability because he did not
know that the item was stolen. Is Fredo correct?
 Fredo is correct. The law provides that a person who is an accessory to the crime is
when said accessory profits from the crime or assists in any other means the
offender of the crime. In the case at bar, Fredo only bought Diego’s laptop to use it
during the bar entrance examinations. He has no knowledge that the item was
stolen. He also did not profit from the crime such as selling the laptop to another
party, or did not assist the offender on the crime. Additionally, an aspiring future
lawyer who’s dream is to become one after doing good in the bar entrance
examination wouldn’t destroy such dream by committing a crime. Thus, Fredo is
correct.
5. Henry borrowed Ike's home-made shotgun, and killed Jack
with it. Lando, knowing what Ike had done, lent the latter Php
20,000.00 for his escape. What is Lando's liability, if any?
Lando is an accessory to the crime. The law provides that accessories to the crime is
done when said accessory profits from the crime or assist the offender in the
completion of the crime. By lending the Ike Php 20,000.00 for his escape, the latter
was able to escaped from the crime he has committed. Thus, Lando is an accessory
to the crime.

6. Maria, who is presently detained for three (3) months already,

was convicted as a concubine. She intimated to you, as her lawyer,
that she does not intend to appeal the decision. What would you do
to best promote the interest of your client? *
What I can do best to promote the interest of my client is to greatly discuss with her the nature of her
conviction and the penalty which she could receive if she doesn't appeal the decision. I will discuss to
her the penalty of destierro which could give her 6 months in jail to some 6 years if she doesn’t appeal.
7. Article 9 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 10951,
provides that if the penalty imposable does not exceed Php 40,000,
it is a light felony. However, the same statute, amending Article 26
of the same RPC, provides that a penalty is light only if it is less
than Php 40,000. How may these provisions be reconciled? *
Article 9 of the RPC sets penalty imposable does not exceed Php 40,000 defines it as light whereas
Article 26 of the RPC provides that the penalty is light only if it is less than P40,000 which addresses
penalties which are less than P40,000. To reconcile, in determining which one can apply, Article 9
prevails over the amended Article 26.

8. Mario was convicted for illegal possession of drug paraphernalia,

and was sentenced to serve the penalty of imprisonment of six (6)
months and one (1) day to two (2) years, to pay a fine of Php
10,000.00, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
Mario argued that the imposition of subsidiary penalty does not
have any legal basis because R.A. 9165 does not provide therefor. Is
he correct? *
Mario is not correct. The law provides that subsidiary penalties are imposed upon the
convicted individual to which has no property in order to pay the fine. The subsidiary
imprisonment was imposed upon him in case of his insolvency.

9. Nilo is an adopted son of Cito. Nilo stole Php 20.00 from Lolo
Tasyo --- Cito's father. Nilo invoked relationship as a mitigating
circumstance. Is he correct? *
Yes, Nilo is correct. The law provides that an act can be mitigated by relationship such as that the
relative is to the same degree of the defender, an adopted sibling, a spouse, ascendant, or descendant. In
the case at bar, the adopted child Nilo is already a descendant of Cito. The former is a descendant of
Lolo Tasyo who owns the Php 20.00. Thus, Nilo is correct.

10. During the trial for theft, the defense was able to prove that the
accused could write the letters of his name, but he does not know
what those letters were, having never attended school. May the
illiteracy of the accused be appreciated as a mitigating
circumstance? *
Yes, illiteracy of the accused may be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance. The general rule is that
low educational attainment or illiteracy can be a mitigating circumstance. However, with the
exemptions that when it is theft, illiteracy is not a mitigating circumstance because theft is an act which
is illegal and known to all even without an education. In the case at bar, the trial is for theft and even
though the accused could write the letters of his name but he doesn’t know what the letters were, does
not mitigate him from the crime committed.

11. Allan offered Php 1 million to Zandro for the latter to kill
Raymond. Zandro killed Raymond because the victim was the one
who sexually assaulted Sandara, his younger sister. What is the
criminal liability, if any, of Allan? *
Allan's criminal liability is the principal by inducement on the crime. The law provides that a Principal
has a direct part in the commission of the crime and those who forces or induces others to commit the
crime. In the case at bar, Allan offered Php 1 million to Zandro to kill Raymond. Allan’s act in offering
the money induces Zandro to kill Raymond. Thus, Allan’s criminal liability is being the principal by
inducement of the crime.

12. Cirilo borrowed Harry's double-edged knife, telling the latter that
he will use to kill Kirk. Cirilo waited under the balite tree for hours
for Kirk to pass by, but it was Bill who arrived instead. So that his
time would not be wasted, Cirilo stabbed Bill to death. Is Harry
liable as an accomplice? *
Yes, Harry is liable as an accomplice. The law provides that a person is an accomplice when he takes
part of the commission of the crime by having knowledge of the crime, and providing assistance to
complete the crime. In the case at bar, Harry let Cirilo borrowed his double-edged knife knowing that
the latter was going to kill, it doesn’t matter who. Thus, harry is liable as an accomplice.

13. May one be liable if he was present, and did not perform an act,
at the scene during the commission of a crime?*
Yes, one may be liable if he was present and did not perform an act at the scene during the commission
of a crime. The law states that an accomplice or an accessory may be present at the commission of the
crime even if they have no direct participation in the act. They can be liable just by having knowledge
of the crime to be committed, having assisted or profiting from said crime, and having a connection or
relationship with the offender. By being present, the person even though not performing an act, his
presence in the scene during the commission of the crime makes him liable for the act.

14. Pablo killed Rob. Ulrich, knowing what Pablo had done, buried
Rob's corpse in shallow grave. Pablo was charged as the principal
and Ulrich was accused of being an accessory. Pablo was
acquitted. What is Ulrich's liability, if any? *
Ulrich is still criminally liable as the crime was still committed. The law provides that the crime of the
accessory can be proceeded separately from the principal. Thus, Ulrich still has criminal liability of
accessory.

15. The convict, upon whom subsidiary imprisonment was

imposed, questioned the constitutionality of the law imposing the
same, arguing that he is imprisoned for non-payment of a debt. Is
he correct?*
He is not correct. Subsidiary imprisonment is suffered by the convict due to insolvency or
that he has no property in order to pay for the fine.

16. Randolf robbed Aling Nena's store, carting away, among others,
canned goods. He sold them to Waldo. Waldo confided to his wife,
Wanda, his transaction with Randolf. Wanda then resold the same
items at a profit. When charged for what she did, Wanda argued
that she is not liable because she only committed the act after her
husband, Waldo, had committed robbery as an accessory. She
contends that there is no accessory to an accessory. Is she
correct? *
Wanda is not correct. According to the law, an accessory to the crime is the one who knows the crime,
who profits from the crime, and those who assist in the commission of the crime. In the case at bar,
Wanda profited from the stolen goods which she knows were stolen by and sold to her husband,
Randolf. By the profits that she get when she sold the canned goods, she benefited from the crime that
was committed. Thus, Wanda is not correct.

17. Lyle treacherously shot Manny to death, and then hid the
victim's body inside a drum sealed with cement. He was charged
with murder for the killing, as a principal, and also as an accessory
for concealing the cadaver. Are the charges correct?

The charge should be that Lyle is the principal in the murder case. The law provides that a
person is considered to be part of the crime when he, himself, takes a direct part in the
commission of the crime and that such part would be so necessary that without it, the crime
would not have been accomplished. In the case at bar, Lyle is takes direct part in the
commission of the crime when he treacherously shot Manny to death and then hid the
victim’s body inside a drum sealed with cement; such act accomplished the crime. Thus, the
charge is incorrect for it should be Lyle is the principal in the murder case.

18. In the course of a heated altercation, Victor hacked Bryan,

hitting him at the abdomen. Victor's father, Lino, arrived and
shouted at his son, " Finish him!" Victor struck Bryan a second
time, hitting the victim at his neck, causing Bryan's death. What
is Lino's liability, if any?
Lino’s liability is an accomplice to the crime. The law provides that
an accomplice knows about the crime and cooperates in the
execution of the crime. In the case at bar, Victor’s father, Lino
arrived at the scene and shouted FINISH HIM even while knowing
that Victor striking Bryan and wherein the former hit the latter a
second time hitting the victim at his neck, causing Bryan's death,
wherein Lino cooperates in the execution of the crime. Thus, Lino’s
liability is an accomplice to the crime.

19. Randy pacified his classmates, Jinggo and Aries, by holding the
latter's hands so that he could not deliver any blow to Jinggo.
However, this enabled Jinggo to stab Aries, causing the latter's
death. What is Randy's liability, if any?
Randy has no liability. Randy was only pacifying his classmates, not assisting or profiting
from the crime, not even being the accomplice to the crime.

20. For the first time in his entire life, Jojo stole a chicken from his
neighbor. His best friend, Dondon, lent him a motorcycle for him to
abscond. When charged as an accessory, Dondon argued that he is
not liable because Jojo did not commit treason, parricide or murder,
nor attempted to kill the President, aside from the fact that Jojo is
not habitually guilty of any crime and he, Dondon, is not a public
official. Is Dondon correct?

Dondon is not correct. The law provides that accessory to a crime, the accused profits from
the crime or assist the offender on the completion of the crime. In the case at bar Dondon
knowing that Jojo stole chicken from his neighbor lent him a motorcycle for him to abscond.
Thereby assisting the latter to escape from the actual crime. What crime was done is not
necessary in the said offense; what the law provides that the accessory to the crime must
profit or assist the offender in the completion of the crime.