1.

Catalina, a Spanish national, and Conrado, a Filipino, set up a counterfeiting

factory in Shenzhen, China. Their factory produces fake United States (US)
Dollars, Japanese Yen, and Philippine Pesos, which are distributed only in Europe
and the US.

While vacationing in Panglao, Bohol, they were arrested by a special task force of
the National Bureau of Investigation on the strength of a warrant of arrest issued
by a Philippine court for Counterfeiting and Forgery. Both Catalina and Conrado
claimed that the Philippine court does not have jurisdiction over them since they
did not commit any criminal act within the territory of the Philippines. Catalina
also argued that the Philippine court does not have jurisdiction over her person
as she is a Spanish citizen. Are Catalina and Conrado correct? Discuss.

Answer:

No. Catalina and Conrado are incorrect in their claim. Article 2 of the
Revised Penal Code provides that provision of its code shall be enforced not only
in the Philippine archipelago but as well as outside its jurisdiction, against those
who shall forge or counterfeit any of the coins or currency notes of the Philippine
Islands. Further, Philippine courts have jurisdiction to anyone who lives or
sojourns in the Philippine territory. For these, Catalina and Conrado are criminally
liable and Philippine courts have jurisdiction over them though they are Spanish
citizens.

2. When Joey came home from work, he saw a man and a woman making love in
the main bedroom. Enraged at the thought that his wife, Abby, was unfaithful to
him, he shot the man and woman to death. However, the couple turned out to
be the driver and kasambahay.

The families of the decedents filed a case of double Homicide against Joey. Joey
invoked the defense of mistake of fact, arguing that he thought the persons he
shot were his wife and her lover. Thus, he is entitled to the privilege or benefit of
Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code, which entitles a legally married person,
who having surprised his or her spouse in the act of sexual intercourse, kills or
seriously injures the same, to the penalty of destierro for being an exceptional
circumstance. Is Joey correct in invoking the defense of mistake of fact? Discuss.

Answer:

No. Joey’s defense of mistake of fact is untenable. Jurisprudence provides

that in order for the defense of mistake of fact to succeed, there shall be no fault
(culpa) on the part of the accused. Joey should have made sure that it was his
wife who was involved in the act. Thus, Joey’s negligence prevents him to invoke
the defense of mistake of fact.

3. 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.

Answer:

No. Randy’s claim of self-defense is untenable. The shooting of Police

officer John at Randy cannot be considered as an unlawful aggression. John
acted in fulfillment of his duty. He was making a lawful arrest to Randy.
Therefore, Randy may not invoke self-defense.

4. 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.

Answer:

If I were the judge, the accident as a defense would not be appreciated

as an exempting circumstance. Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code
provides that for accident as a defense to prosper, there shall be no fault
and intention in causing it. Dyords failed to apply due care in his lawful
act. There is no need for him to pin down Michael, who was already
handcuffed, against the pavement.

5. 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.

Answer:

No. Sisa’s contention is untenable. The desistance of Sisa was already in

the objective phase of the crime. She already performed all acts of execution
which would result only to consummated felony or frustrated felony. Further, the
stabbed wounds of the child were lethal. The doctrine rule states that if the
wounds inflicted to the victim are lethal but do not cause his death, the felony shall
be considered frustrated. Thus, Sisa is liable of frustrated parricide.
6. Rico, a hit man, positioned himself at the rooftop of a nearby building of a bank,
to serve as a lookout for Red and Rod while the two were robbing the bank, as
the three of them had previously planned.

Ramiro, a policeman, responded to the reported robbery. Rico saw Ramiro and,
to eliminate the danger of Red and Rod being caught, pulled the trigger of his
rifle, intending to kill Ramiro. He missed as Ramiro slipped and fell down to the
ground.

Instead, a woman depositor who was coming out of the bank was fatally shot.
After their apprehension, Rico, Red, and Rod were charged with the special
complex crime of robbery with homicide. Rico's defense was that he never
intended to shoot and kill the woman, only Ramiro. Red and Rod's defense was
that they were not responsible for the death of the woman as they had no
participation therein.

(a) Is Rico's defense meritorious?

(b) Is Red and Rod's defense meritorious?

Answers:
(a) No. Rico’s defense is not meritorious. Article 4 of the Revised Penal
Code provides that a person is criminally liable when he commits a felony
although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.
Although Rico had mistakenly shot the woman, his act was criminal. Therefore,
he is criminally liable.

(b) No. Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code provides that there is
conspiracy when two or more persons come to agreement concerning a
commission of a crime and decide to commit it. Red, Rod, and Rico are all
conspirators in the crime. It is a general rule in conspiracy that the act of one is
the act of all. Therefore, all of them are principals for the crime.

7. After a long day of work in Davao City, Brando went home to Digos City to
surprise his wife, Christina. When he arrived home, Brando found Christina and
his best friend Darwin in bed in the act of sexual intercourse. In his anger,
Brando got his gun and shot Christina and Darwin.

a. Supposed Darwin was able to wrestle the gun from Brando and shot
Brando instead resulting in the latter’s death, may Darwin invoke self-
defense? Justify your answer.

b. Supposed Darwin was able to wrestle the gun from Brando and was about
to shoot Brando when Christina grabbed a knife and struck Darwin
resulting in the latter’s death, can Christina invoke any justifying
circumstance? Justify your answer.

Answers:
a. No. Darwin may not invoke self-defense. Article 11, paragraph 1 of the
Revised Penal Code requires that there be no sufficient provocation on the part
of the person defending himself. Darwin and Christina’s unlawful act was a
sufficient provocation for Brando to shot them.
 b. Yes. Christina may invoke Article 11, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal
Code. The act of Christina was a defense of a relative. There was an unlawful
aggression by the Darwin, Christina’s means employed was reasonably
necessary, and she did not provoke the victim.

8. Lynda and Myka devised a plan to murder Nancy. In a narrow alley near Nancy's
house, Lynda will hide behind the big lamppost and shoot Nancy when the latter
passes through on his way to work. Myka will come from the other end of the
alley and simultaneously shoot Nancy from behind. On the appointed day and
while on her way to the narrow alley, Myka was apprehended by the authorities
because of a traffic violation. When Lynda shot Nancy as planned, she was
unaware that Myka was arrested earlier.

A. Discuss the criminal liability of Lynda and Myka.

Answer:

In this case, Lynda is criminally liable of murder. Article 248 of the Revised
Penal Code provides that killing with treachery (alevosia) and evident
premeditation is murder. Hiding from behind the lamp post for her execution
of the crime be insured is treachery, and planning the crime is an evident
premeditation when proven. On one hand, Myka is not criminally liable of the
crime, since she was not in the scene of the crime.

B. What is conspiracy?

Answer:
Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code defines conspiracy an agreement
between two or more persons concerning the commission of a crime and decide
to commit it.

9. Ferdy had a long-standing feud with the family of Gary, Harold, and Icy, his
neighbors.

Before New Year, Gary and Harold used their firecrackers to ward off evil spirits.
Jacky, the child of Ferdy, got scared and cried. Thus, Ferdy went to Gary’s house
where he had a confrontation with Gary, Harold, and Icy. Unknown to Ferdy,
Jacky followed him and meddled with the affairs. Jacky shouted for them to stop
fighting. However, Gary shouted for Jacky to shut up while he was embracing
Harold who was then fuming mad. Hearing this, Ferdy shot Gary and Harold to
the head, who were both in front of him and facing him. While they were on the
ground, Ferdy shot them again resulting in their death. Thereafter, he also shot
Icy, whose back was turned from him resulting in Icy’s death. Fearing reprisal,
Ferdy got Jacky and went home. Afterwards, he surrendered to a barangay
captain. Before the prosecution could present its first witness, Ferdy voluntarily
confessed his guilt.

What are the mitigating and aggravating circumstances present in the instant
case, if any?
 Answer: Under Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code, Ferdy’s voluntary
surrender to the barangay captain as person in authority before the
presentation of evidences for prosecution is a mitigating circumstance. On
one hand, under Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code, Ferdy’s act was
aggravated by cruelty, he did not need to shot again Gary and Harold. He
did not even need to shot Icy.

10. Wina asked Xyzy to kill Zandro because of a grave injustice committed by Zandro
against Wina. Wina promised Xyzy a reward. However, Xyzy killed Zandro not so
much because of the reward promised but because she had a long standing
grudge against Zandro. Thereafter, a case was filed against Xyzy and Wina for
murder. Wina contended that she should not be held liable. If you were the
judge, how would you decide?

Answer:

If I were the judge, Wina shall be held liable for murder. Under Article 17 of the
Revised Penal Code, she is a principal by direct inducement. The crime would
have not prospered without her convincing Xyzy to kill Zandro.