Answer Key for Prelim Exam

I. Identification

1. Criminal Law
2. Felony
3. Offense
4. French Rule
5. English Rule
6. Negligence (No.1 for Set B)
7. Mistake in identity or error in personae
8. Praeter Inentionem
9. Doctrine of Proximate Cause
10. Formal Crimes

II. True or False

1. False
2. True
3. True
4. True
5. False
6. True (No. 1 for Set B)
7. True
8. False
9. True
10. True

III.

1. A
2. C
3. B
4. A
5. D
6. B (No. 1 for Set B)
7. C
8. A
9. C
10.B

IV.

1. No. One of the limitations of the power of the legislature is that it cannot enact an ex post facto law.
The 1987 Philippine Constitution prohibits the making of an ex post facto law which is a law that makes
illegal an act that was legal when committed, increase the penalties for an infraction after it has been
committed, or changes the rules of evidence to make conviction easier.
Hence, a law that makes chewing gum illegal and requires the arrest of every person who has ever
chewed gum even before the law existed is invalid and unconstitutional for being an ex post facto law.

2. No. Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code states that criminal liability shall be incurred by any person
committing a felony although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. One of
the situations contemplated by this article is error in personae or “mistake in identity”. This happens
when an offender actually hit the person to whom the blow was directed but turned out to be different
from and not the victim intended. The criminal liability is not affected, unless the mistake in identity
resulted to a crime different from what the offender intended to commit.

In the instant case, Yoyoy is still liable for the killing of Bufalo even if his real target is Babalu. The
mistake of identity or error in personae on the victim will not exonerate Yoyoy from incurring criminal
liability.

3. No. Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code states that a conspiracy exists when two or more person come
to an agreement concerning the commission of the crime and decided to commit it. In conspiracy, the
act of one conspirator is the act of the others. The act of one is the act of all. There is collective criminal
responsibility.

In the instant case, Bebang conspired with Kikay and Badiday to kill Bentong. Even if she did not actually
stab Bentong to death as she merely served as look-out, the degree of her criminal responsibility is
equal to that of Kikay and Badiday. In conspiracy, it is not necessary to show that all conspirators
actually hit and killed the victim. What is important is that the participants performed specific acts with
such closeness and coordination as unmistakably to indicate a common purpose or design in bringing
about the death of the victim.