Q : A planned the killing of B and monitored his movement.

When A saw B
entering the comfort room, he placed himself at the exit door. It so
happened that C who looks like B came out of the CR. Believing it was B, A
shot C dead. Can you appreciate evident premeditation?
A: NO. the plan was focused against B and not against C.
Q: In the question above, A did not plan to kill B, but when he chanced
upon the latter entering the CR, A placed himself behind a big drum of
water near the exit door. When A saw C, who came out ahead of B, he
thought it was B, thus A shot dead. Is there treachery?
A: yes. Whether the person killed is the intended victim or the mistaken one, it
cannot be gainsaid that the attack was treacherous.
Q: A is charged as Accessory under Art. 19. (benefitting from the proceeds
of the crime, i.e. buying a stolen personal property for a very low prce), can
he likewise be charged under PD 1612 (Anti fencing law)?
A: In DIzon-Pamintuan vs People, the SC ruled that the state may choose to
prosecute the offender either under the RPC or PD 1612, although preference for
the latter would seem inevitable considering Fencing is Malum prohibitum, and
PD 1612 creates a presumption of fencing and prescribes a higher penalty.
Accused may be charged under both laws without transgression of the principle
of double jeopardy.
Q: G, owner of the gun, lent it to A because A told him he is going to kill E.
G also has a grudge against E.
A, with the gun lent by G, begun looking for E but cannot find him. A
spotted another enemy, X who is the relative of G. Would G be held liable
as an accomplice?
A: NO because there is no direct relation between the fact that G lent his gun to
A, to the fact that A killed X. G lent his gun to for A to kill E.
Q: M, a man field a complaint for Estafa against L, a lady. As the trial went
on, they patched up their differences, became friend, and later married
each other. Since the case was already submitted to resolution when they
got married, they just filed a MTD the case because they were already
spouses. The trial court convicted L of Estafa. Is the decision correct?
A: If the MTD was anchored on the facts that the marriage extinguishes criminal
liability upon the marriage of the offender and the offended party, the ground is

untenable because marriage extinguishes criminal liability only in cases of

Seduction, Abduction, Rape, and Acts of Lasciviousness.
If the MTD is based on Art. 332 of the RPC, that there is no criminal liability but
only civil liability in case of Theft, Estafa, and Malicious Mischief between
spouses, the same is not applicable because when estafa was committed, the
parties were not yet husband and wife.
Q: C, convicted of Homicide sentenced to 8 years to 17 years
imprisonment, escaped after 2 years. He was apprehended, charged, and
convicted of Evasion of Service and meted a penalty of imprisonment for 6
months to 2 years. While still serving for homicide, he was granted an
Absolute Pardon for Homicide. He now claims that he will no longer serve
the penalty for Evasion of Service because were it not for Homicide, he
cannot commit Evasion of service of sentence. Resolve.
A: He has to serve the penalty for Evasion of Service because the Absolute
pardon refers specifically to Homicide.
Q: While X was serving the prison term for Sedition, his application for
Amnesty under the law then effective was approved by the Chief Executive.
Is it proper for him to claim that he will no longer serve the penalty for
Evasion of Service of sentence? Resolve with reason.
A: Yes. The effect of Amnesty in Sedition is to remove all the effects of
conviction. It is as if he is a newborn child. Thus, he cannot be ordered to serve
the penalty for Evasion of service of sentence.

Q: May a person in the possession of a toy gun be penalized under RA

10591, the new law on illegal possession of firearms and explosives?
A: Toy guns, if used in committing a crime, shall be considered real guns without
license. (ex. Using a toy gun to hold-up a man, and the man out of fear, gave his
money)
Q: A was hired by B to kill the Mayor for P1m. A shot the mayor and when
he was about to feel, he got the Mayors Rolex watch. What crime/s were
committed?
A: 1) murder with direct assault for killing the Mayor, 2) Theft for taking the watch
of the Mayor. It is not robbery with homicide because the original criminal intent is
to kill and not to rob.

Q: W, a woman, married L, another woman, because they are madly in love

with each other. Did they commit an offense?
A: Yes, the crime is illegal marriage or marriage contracted against the
provisions of the law, Art. 350, RPC.
Q: A saw P, a policeman on leave, eating at a restaurant. A drew his knife
and shouted to P, bakit ka nanliligaw sa misis ko. Seriously intimidated, P
ran as fast as he could. Was Direct Assault committed?
A: no. P was attacked due to personal or private reasons.
Q: A found an envelope containing 50K. herefused to give it to the owner
despite knowing the latters identity. What offense was committed?
A: Theft. Having found the lost property, he failed to deliver the same to the
owner or the local authorities (Art. 308, RPC)
Q: A intended to kill E, his mortal enemy. A saw E in his (Es) house and
burned the house, resulting to the death of E. What crime was committed?
A: Murder by means of fire. There is no complex crime of Murder with arson.
Q: Suppose A did not know that E was inside the house and burned the
house causing the death of E. What crime was committed?
A: Arson. There is no complex crime of Arson with Murder because A could not
have intended to kill E given that he did not know that E was inside the house
when he put it on fire.
Q: Suppose A killed B inside the house and then burned the house to cover
up for the killing. What crime/s were commited?
A: Homicide/Murder as the case may be and another crime of Arson.
Q: the Grandfather killed the illegitimate son of his daughter. Is there
Parricide?
A: NO, The crime is murder/homicide. In case
The person killed is other descendant or other ascendant, the relationship must
be legitimate. It is only when the relative killed is a father, mother or child that the
relationship could be legitimate or illegitimate Art. 246.