1. The act of Jinn is nothing but a provocation.

It cannot be characterized as an unlawful aggression because in criminal law, an

unlawful aggression is an attack or a threatened attack which produces an imminent danger to the life and limb of the one
resorting to self-defense. In the facts of the problem given above, what was said was that Jinn was holding a bolo. That bolo
does not produce any real or imminent danger unless Jinn raises her arm with the bolo. As long as that arm of Jinn was down
holding the bolo, there is no imminent danger to the life or limb of Claire. Therefore, the act of Claire in shooting Jinn is not
justified.

2. Yes. In law, the condition that a person making the defense did not act out of revenge, resentment or evil motive is not a
requirement in defense of relative. This is only required in defense of strangers.

3. No, Jacques is not entitled to a suspension of sentence since he is no longer a minor at the time of the promulgation of the
sentence. He was already 23 years old. For purposes of suspension of sentence, his age at the time of promulgation is the
determining factor, not the age at the time of commission of the offense.

4. The aggravating circumstances present are nocturnity and evident premeditation. Treachery cannot be considered here
because the offended party was able to put up a defense and that negates treachery. In treachery, the offended party, due to
the means, method or form employed by the offender, the former was denied the chance to defend himself.
If because of the cover of darkness, Yvonne was not able to put up a defense and A was able to flee as B died, treachery
would’ve been present, thus absorbing nocturnity.

5. The reason for this is as the time the first crime was committed (robbery), there was no other crime of which he was
convicted so he cannot be regarded as a recidivist. The robbery which was committed earlier was decided much later. It
must’ve been the other way around to appreciate the aggravating circumstance of recidivism. This is because in 2005 when he
committed the robbery, there was no prior crime committed yet. Thus, even though in imposing the penalty for robbery, there
was already a prior conviction (theft), if that conviction is subsequent to the commission of robbery, he is not a recidivist.

6. The following modifying circumstances are present:

-Unlawful Entry (Aggravating)
-That as a means to the commission of a crime, a wall, roof, floor, door or window be broken.
-That the crime be committed by means of motor vehicles
-Treachery (appreciated even in aberration ictus) (absorbed Nighttime and Band)

7. No. Ms. A can invoke the justifying circumstance of self-defense as a tenable defense in trial. Details of the case point out
that Ms. A was clearly suffering from Battered Woman Syndrome which is a sufficient ground for self-defense, provided that
the following circumstances are present:
(1) there had been at least two battering episodes
(2) because of the relentless battering, actual fear of an imminent harm has been born in the mind
of the woman.
(3) at the time of the killing, batterer must have posed probable grave harm

8. A. As to commission (Art. 3) -
1. Dolo or felonies committed with deliberate intent; and
2. Culpa or those committed by means of fault.
B. As to the stage of execution (Article 6) –
1. Attempted;
2. Frustrated; and
3. Consummated.
C. Article 9
1. Grave Felonies
2. Less Grave Felonies
3. Light Felonies

9. “ACTUS ME INVITO FACTUS NON EST MEUS ACTUS” simply means “any act done by me against my will is not my act.”
Paragraph 5 refers to “Irresistible Force” while Paragraph 6 refers to “Uncontrollable Fear”
In Irresistible Force, offender uses violence of physical force to compel another person to commit a crime, while in
Uncontrollable Fear, offender employs intimidation of threat in compelling another to commit a crime.

10. Yes. Amnesty extinguishes the penalty and its effects. However, pardon DOES NOT obliterate the fact that the accused was
a recidivist. Thus, even if the accused was granted a pardon for the first offense but she commits another felony embraced in
the same title of the Code, the first conviction is still counted to make her a recidivist.