I.

Distinguish crimes mala in se from crimes mala prohibita.

Mala in se Mala prohibita

Definition A crime or an act that is inherently An act that is considered a crime
immoral, such as murder, arson, or rape because it is prohibited by statute,
[Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th ed.] although the act itself is not necessarily
immoral [Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th
ed.]
Applicable law General Rule: They are punished by General Rule: Special laws, i.e., hazing,
RPC refusing access to corporate records,
Exceptions: Special penal laws that are smoking in public places, illegal
declared as mala in se, i.e., plunder possession of firearms, and so on.
(Estrada v Sandiganbayan), physical Exception: Technical malversation
abuse under RA 7610 or Child Abuse (illegal use of public funds under the
Law (Patulot v. People, 2019), WILLFUL RPC) is a malum prohibitum. (Ysidro v
deprivation of support under the VAWC People, 2012)
Act (Acharon v. People, 2021)
Intent Criminal intent is necessary Criminal intent is immaterial. Intent
to perpetrate the act is
necessary/already sufficient.
Good faith Hence, good faith is a valid defense Hence, good faith is NOT a valid
defense
Degree of The degree of accomplishment As a rule, there is only one punishment
accomplishment (consummated/frustrated/attempted) is for all offenders. The degree of
necessary in determining the penalty to accomplishment is not necessary. The
be imposed exception is if the special law punishes
the different degrees of
accomplishment, i.e., Anti-Trafficking
in Persons Act
Persons punished The principal, accomplice, and accessory As a rule, only the principal is
are punished. punished. The exception is if the special
law punishes the accomplice and
accessory too, i.e., Anti-Hazing Act.

II.

Police officer John ran after Randy who had just killed Willy in John’s presence. John fired at Randy in an
attempt to stop him in his tracks. In response, Randy fired back at John, hitting him. John was seriously
wounded but survived due to timely medical assistance. Randy was then charged with Frustrated
Homicide. During the trial, Randy claimed self-defense.

Is Randy’s claim of self-defense tenable? Explain briefly.

No, Randy’s claim of self-defense is untenable.

Under the Revised Penal Code, the following are the elements of self-defense: (1) unlawful aggression, (2)
reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it, and (3) lack of sufficient provocation
on the part of the person defending himself.
Here, the claim of self-defense is untenable, because it was Randy who killed Willy in John’s presence.
Thus, the aggression by John was not unlawful, since he was just fulfilling his duty as a police officer in
apprehending Randy for killing Willy.

III.

Michael was driving along the highway when he executed a prohibited U-Turn. Dyords, a police officer,
accosted Michael for the traffic violation. A verbal argument ensued between them. Dyords suddenly
drew his service firearm, and pointed it at Michael. Dyords ordered Michael to alight from his car, which
the latter obeyed. Dyords then handcuffed Michael and pinned his head and body against the pavement
until he could no longer breathe. Michael died. Charged with Homicide, Dyords interposed the
exempting circumstance of accident as a defense.

If you were the judge, how would you resolve Dyords’ defense? Explain briefly.

The defense of Dyords deserves no merit.

Under the Revised Penal Code, any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an
injury by mere accident without fault or intention of causing it, is the exempting circumstance of accident.
Thus, the person incurs no criminal liability.
Here, the defense of accident deserves no merit, because Michael did not exercise due care and was at
fault when he handcuffed Dyords. He could have apprehended Dyords without pinning his head and
body against the pavement.

IV.

A police officer responded to a disturbance call at around 1:30 p.m. in an apartment in Quezon City.
Upon his arrival, the police officer encountered Sisa stabbing her 1-year old child with a kitchen knife.
The police officer grabbed Sisa and the latter threw the knife on the floor. Sisa was immediately taken
into custody. Despite suffering multiple stab wounds on her back, the child survived. During the trial,
Sisa insisted that she can only be held liable for Attempted Parricide because she voluntarily desisted
when she threw down the knife

Is Sisa’s contention tenable? Explain briefly.

No, the contention of Sisa is untenable.

Under the Revised Penal Code, the felony is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of
execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it
by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. Further, there is an attempt when the
offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts
of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than this own
spontaneous desistance.
Here, Sisa’s contention is untenable, because at the time she threw away the knife, she already stabbed
her 1-year old child multiple times. Thus, all of the acts of execution which would produce parricide were
already done by her.

V.

In dire need of money, Mr. R decided to steal from his next-door neighbor, Mrs. V. On the night of May
15, 2010, Mr. R proceeded with his plan entered Mrs. V's bedroom by breaking one of the windows from
the outside. Finding Mrs. V sound asleep, he silently foraged through her cabinet, and stashed all the
bundles of cash and jewelries he could find.
As Mr. R was about to leave, he heard Mrs. V shout, "Stop or I will shoot you!", and when he turned
around, he saw Mrs. V cocking a rifle which has pointed at him. Fearing for his life, Mr. R then lunged at
Mrs. V and was able to wrest the gun away from her. Thereafter, Mr. R shot Mrs. V, which resulted in her
death. Mr. R's deeds were discovered on the very same night as he was seen by law enforcement
authorities fleeing the crime scene.

May Mr. R validly invoke the justifying circumstances of self-defense? Explain.

No, Mr. R may not validly invoke the justifying circumstances of self-defense.

Under the Revised Penal Code, the following are the elements of self-defense: (1) unlawful aggression, (2)
reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it, and (3) lack of sufficient provocation
on the part of the person defending himself.

Here, Mr. R may not validly invoke the justifying circumstances of self-defense, because Mrs. V’s act of
cocking a rifle and pointing at him was not unlawful aggression. It was a lawful act that Mrs. V
performed in order to protect herself and her property.

VI.

Mr. A has a long-standing feud with Mr. B. As payback for Mr. B's numerous transgressions against him,
Mr. A planned to bum down Mr. B's rest house.

One night, Mr. A went to the rest house and started pouring gasoline on its walls. However, just as Mr. A
had lit the match for burning, he was discovered by Mr. B's caretaker, Ms. C, and was consequently
prevented from setting the rest house on fire. Mr. A was then charged with Frustrated Arson.

Is the charge of Frustrated Arson proper? Explain.

No, the charge of Frustrated Arson is improper.

Under the Revised Penal Code, a felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its
execution and accomplishment are present; and it is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of
execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it
by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. There is an attempt when the offender
commences the commission of a felony directly or over acts, and does not perform all the acts of
execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than this own
spontaneous desistance. Meanwhile, case law dictates that there can never be a crime of frustrated arson.
Once a portion of the building was burned, arson was consummated.

Here, the charge of Frustrated Arson is improper, because the charge should have been Attempted Arson.
Mr. A was not able to set the house on fire, because he was prevented by Mr. B after he lit the match for
burning.

VII.

Ms. M, a Malaysian visiting the Philippines, was about to depart for Hong Kong via an Indonesian-
registered commercial vessel. While on board the vessel, which was still docked at the port of Manila, she
saw her mortal enemy, Ms. A, an Australian citizen. Ms. A was seated at the front portion of the cabin
and was busy using her laptop, with no idea whatsoever that Ms. M was likewise onboard the ship.
Consumed by her anger towards Ms. A, Ms. M stealthily approached the Australian from behind, and
then quickly stabbed her neck with a pocketknife, resulting in Ms. A's immediate death. Operatives from
the Philippine National Police - Maritime Command arrested Ms. M for the killing of Ms. A and
thereafter, intended to charge her under the Revised Penal Code (RPC). Ms. M contended that the
provisions of the RPC cannot be applied and enforced against her because both she and the victim are not
Filipino nationals, and besides, the alleged crime was committed in an Indonesian-registered vessel.

Is Ms. M's contention against the application of the RPC against her tenable? Explain.

No, Ms. M’s contention is untenable.

Case law dictates that the generality principle provides that penal laws shall be obligatory upon all who
live or sojourn in the Philippine territory. Further, the territoriality principles provides that the Revised
Penal Code shall be enforced within the Philippine Archipelago, its atmosphere, its interior waters, and
maritime zone.

Here, Ms. M’s contention is untenable, because, despite the foreign citizenship of Ms. M and Ms. A, the
provisions of the Revised Penal Code must apply against Ms. M, because she was sojourning in the
Philippines. Further, the foreign nationality of the vessel is immaterial, because the crime was committed
while the vessel was still docked at the port of Manila.

VIII.

Mr. X and Mr. Y engaged in a violent fistfight which Mr. X instigated. This culminated in Mr. X
repeatedly smashing Mr. Y's head on the concrete pavement. Thereafter, Mr. X left Mr. Y barely breathing
and almost dead. A few minutes after the incident, Mr. X immediately went to the police station to
confess what he did and told the police where he left Mr. Y. Fortunately, the police rescued Mr. Y and he
survived with the help of timely medical intervention. Mr. X was then charged in court with Frustrated
Homicide, to which he openly confessed his guilt upon arraignment.

(a) Based on the above-stated facts, what is/are the mitigating circumstance/s that may be appreciated
in favor of Mr. X. Explain.

The mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and voluntary confession of guilty shall be
appreciated in favor of Mr. X.

Under the Revised Penal Code, that the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a person in
authority or his agents, or that he had voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior to the
presentation of the evidence for the prosecution are mitigating circumstances.

Here, the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and voluntary confession of guilty shall be
appreciated in favor of Mr. X, because (1) he immediately went to the police station to confess what he
did after beating up Mr. Y, and (2) he openly confessed his guilt upon arraignment.

(b) Under the Revised Penal Code, Homicide is punished with the penalty of reclusion temporal.
Without applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, what penalty should be imposed against Mr. X
assuming that he is found guilty of the charge of Homicide, and that the presence of two (2) ordinary
mitigating circumstances have been duly alleged and proven? Explain.

Mr. X must serve an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which is prision mayor in its medium
period, and the minimum term of which is anywhere within the range of prision correccional.
Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended, the offender must serve an indeterminate sentence
the maximum term of which is that penalty prescribed by law for the offense, without considering
modifying circumstances, and the minimum term of which is anywhere within the range of the penalty
next lower in degree. Further, under the Revised Penal Code, when there are two (2) or more mitigating
circumstances and one (1) aggravating circumstance, the prescribed penalty shall be imposed in its
minimum period.

Here, Mr. X must serve an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which is prision mayor in its
medium period, and the minimum term of which is anywhere within the range of prision correccional.
With respect to the maximum term, the prescribed penalty shall be prision mayor, because (1) there were
two mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstances and (2) the next degree lower from
reclusion temrpoal is prision mayor. There are no other mitigating circumstances so the maximum term
shall be imposed in its medium period. With respect to the minimum term, the penalty next lower in
degree from prision mayor is prision correccional.

IX.

Robbie and Rannie are both inmates of the National Penitentiary, serving the maximum penalty for
robbery which they committed some years before and for which they have been sentenced by final
judgment. One day, Robbie tried to collect money owed by Rannie. Rannie insisted that he did not owe
Robbie anything, and after a shouting episode, Rannie kicked Robbie in the stomach. Robbie fell to the
ground in pain, and Rannie left him to go to the toilet to relieve himself. As Rannie was opening the door
to the toilet and with his back turned against Robbie, Robbie stabbed him in the back with a bladed
weapon that he had concealed in his waist. Hurt, Rannie ran to the nearest "kubol" where he fell. Robbie
ran after him· and, while Rannie was lying on the ground, Robbie continued to stab him, inflicting a total
of 15 stab wounds. He died on the spot. Robbie immediately surrendered to the Chief Warden. When
prosecuted for the murder of Rannie, Robbie raised provocation and voluntary surrender as mitigating
circumstances. The prosecution, on the other hand, claimed that there was treachery in the commission of
the crime.

Is Robbie a recidivist?

No, Robbie is not a recidivist.

Under the Revised Penal Code, a recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have
been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of this Code.
Meanwhile, case law dictates that the following are the elements of murder: (1) A person was killed; (2)
The accused killed him without any justifying circumstance; (3) The accused had the intention to kill; and
(4) The killing was attended by treachery.

Here, Robbie is not a recidivist, because (1) Robbie committed the crime of murder when he stabbed
Rannie at the back while the latter was opening the door to the toilet, and (2) the crime of robbery and the
crime of murder are not embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code.