1. A induced B to kill C, without giving any price, reward or promise.

B went to Cs
house, fired a shot at C while C was asleep on the floor
a. What are the respective criminal liabilities of A & B?
b. Would you appreciate dwelling as an aggravating circumstance?
a. Other ways of inducing a person aside from giving any price, reward or promise is
by: (a) Using words of command of by forcing material executor by irresistible fear or
by causing uncontrollable fear.
If the above mentioned situation is present, then A would be liable as a principal by
inducement, provided that the words uttered are so powerful and so efficacious and
that the force inflicted be compelling enough to induce B to commit the crime
(pursuant to Article 16, par 2). However, if the word words uttered by A prior to the
commission of the act is a thoughtless expression without intention, then A has no
criminal liability.
Regardless of whether or not there was inducement on the part of A, B, as a material
executor of the consummated crime, will be criminally liable for the murder of C as a
Principal by Direct Participation. (Art 16, par 1)
b. Yes. Dwelling is a circumstance that aggravates the killing. In order for the dwelling
to be proven, there must be a violation of the sanctity of the home by trespassing
therein. Since C was sleeping at his home considered to be his place of comfort
when the crime was instigated, dwelling is appreciated. (Art 14, par 3.)
2. Angry at demonstrators, Policeman B threw a hand grenade at them. One died and
the three sustained slight physical injuries. What crimes are committed by
Policeman? Reason out.
Policeman B committed Murder with Attempted Murder. Article 48 of the RPC provides
two kinds of complex crimes: (1) compound and (2) complex crime proper. A complex
crime proper is when an act was done necessary to commit the other while compound
complex crimes originate from one single act that produces two or more grave felonies,
two or more less grave felonies or 1 or more less grave and 1 or more grave felonies. In
the case above, Policeman B threw a hand grenade at the demonstrators. This single
act of Policeman B resulted the death of one and injuries of three other. Although the
latter result is considered a light felony, the crime was qualified to murder by the use of
hand grenade. Following the ruling of People v. Guillen, the crime committed by
Policeman B is Murder with Attempted Murder.

3. Mario was assaulted by X, Y, Z. X inflicted the fatal wound. Y and Z confined their
attack to a struggle for the possession of a stick carried by Mario. While Y and Z
were attacking Mario, Ben and Bogart were mere spectators. All five, however,
buried the corpse of the victim. What are the criminal liabilities of X, Y, Z, Ben and
Bogart? Why?

If conspiracy was proven, then all of them, even Bogart and Ben are liable as coprincipals in the crime of murder. It is a rule in conspiracy that the act of one is the act of
all.
If it is shown that conspiracy was not attendant, X, Y, Z are principals by direct
participation of the crime of murder, because altogether, they employed means to
weaken the defense of Mario.
Ben and Bogart are liable as accomplices even if they were merely spectators and took
part only in burying Marios body. In People v. Ubina, the acts of the accused limited to
being present and staying around the premises were considered as material and moral
aide, thereafter ruling them as accomplices. Ben and Bogarts presence in the
commission of the crime, as well as their concurrence in the plan to bury the deceased
imply that they had knowledge of the commission of the crime by X, Y, and Z.
4.

(a) In what cases are mitigating and aggravating circumstances not considered in
the imposition of penalty?
(b) In what cases shall the Indeterminate Sentence Law not apply?
a. Mitigating and aggravating circumstances are not considered when: (1) the penalty is
single and indivisible; (2) if the felony was committed through negligence; (3) if the
penalty is only a fine; (4) if the penalty is imposed upon a Moro or other nonChristian inhabitants subject to different administration codes; and (5) if the crime is
punishable by special laws.
b. According to Sec 2 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, ISLAW is not applicable to
(1) crimes punishable by life imprisonment or death; (2) those convicted of Treason,
Rebellion or proposal to commit Treason; (3) those convicted of misprision of
Treason, Rebellion, Espionage and Sedition; (4) those convicted of piracy; (5) those
who are habitual delinquents; (6) those who have escaped from confinement or has
evaded the service of sentence; (7) those who violated the conditions of the pardon;
(8) those sentenced to an imprisonment not more than one year; (9) those who have
already been sentenced by final judgement prior to the enactment of this law; (10)
those sentenced to destierro or suspension; and (11) if the sentence is unfavourable
to the accused.

5. (a) Paolo imbibed some liquor and was drunk before he went to kill Jose, the
deceased. Would intoxication mitigate or aggravate Paolos criminal liability?
According to Article 15, intoxication is considered as an alternative circumstance.
It will be considered as a mitigating circumstance if Paolos intoxication is not habitual or
is not prior to the commission of the crime. In Article 15, Intoxication is considered as an
alternative circumstance. The burden of proof lies with the defendant.
It will be considered as an aggravating circumstance if the intoxication is proved to be
habitual and that the intoxication is intentional to commit the crime.

6. X attacked Y and the latter suffered slight physical injuries. After trial, X was
convicted of the crime charged and was sentenced to pay a fine of P 200, with
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
a. For how long should X be detained for his subsidiary liability?
b. Suppose the sentence is an imprisonment of one month and a fine of P 200
with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, what is the duration of
the subsidiary liability?
a. Slight physical injuries is considered a light felony. In paragraph 2 of Article 39, it is
said that when the penalty imposed is a fine and the crime committed is a light
felony, the service of Xs sentence corresponding the subsidiary penalty should not
exceed 15 days.
b. In this situation, paragraph 1 of Article 39 should be followed. Paragraph 1 states
that when the penalty imposed is prision correccional or arresto and a fine, his
subsidiary imprisonment should not exceed 1/3 of the term of the sentence, at the
rate of 491/day or the amount of the highest minimum wage prevailing in the country
at the time judgement was rendered.

7. (a) Which is or are absorbed by the other in the following?

a. Band
b. Nighttime
c. Aid of armed men
d. Trachery
e. Craft
f. Evident premeditation
g. Abuse of superior strength
(b) In the crime of rape, what are the pecuniary liabilities that could be imposed
upon accused and how much? What about rape with homicide?
a. Treachery absorbed Band, Nighttime, Aid of Armed Men, Craft, and Abuse of
Superior Strength. Evident premedation and treachery can be considered as two
different circumstances.
b. In the crime of rape, the pecuniary liabilities that maybe imposed are (1) reparation
of damage caused, (2) indemnification of the consequential damages, (3) fine and
(4) cost of proceedings, in that order (Art 38).
The reparation should amount to the price of the clothing torn or any property
damaged upon the consummation of rape, while the indemnification for qualified
rape is 75,000 pesos, simple rape for 50,000 pesos and rape of homicide for
100,000 pesos. The fines and cost of proceedings are imposed with the discretion of
the court.

8. (a) Generally, the acquittal of the accused does not necessarily extinguish his
civil liabilities. What are the exceptions?
The exception to this general rule that the acquittal of the accused does not necessarily
extinguish his civil liabilities are when: (1) the accused is found not guilty of the crime; or
(2) the accused is acquitted on the following exempting grounds: Accidents (Article 12,
par 4) and failure to perform an act required by law when prevented by some lawful or
insuperable cause (Art 12, paragraph 7)

9. Robbery just occurred, and Nilo was found in possession of the thing taken out
of the robbery. For what crime or offense would you file against Nilo?
Nilo would be liable as a principal under the Anti-Fencing Law (P.D. 1612). A
person is found guilty on the previously mentioned law when: the accused, who
helped the principal of robbery, knowingly took and gained possession of the
thing taken out of the victim.

10. Y kidnapped a Chinese boy and demanded for ransom of 1 million. The
ransom was paid and the Chinese biy was released. Z, a friend of Y, learned that
was being hunted by the police for kidnapping; and she took him into her house
and Y was able to elude the police.
(a) Did Z incur criminal liability?
(b) Would your answer be the same if Z is the brother of Y?

a. Yes. He incurred criminal liability as a principal under PD 1829 or Obstruction of Justice.

For an accused to be considered as a principal in Obstruction of Justice, it is enough
that: (1) the offender who was assisted committed a crime; (2) and that the crime is not
Murder, Attempt against the life of the President, Parricide, Treason or that the offender
is not a habitual criminal. In the case above. Z assisted Y by harbouring him in his
house, thereby allowing Y, guilty of kidnapping, to evade capture.
b.

No. If Z is the brother of Y, he is exempted from criminal liability under Article 20 of the
RPC. In Article 20, accessories are exempted, provided that they are the principals (1)
spouse; (2) ascendants; (3) descendants, (4) legitimate, natural, or adopted brothers or
sisters; or (5) relatives by affinity within the same degree. Therefore, Z is not criminally
liable as an accessory PROVIDED, that Z did not profit from the P1 million ransom taken
by Y and that Z did not assist Y to profit from the kidnapping.