Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Roberto and Ricardo have had a long-standing dispute regarding since Ricardo was not around his bedroom when the crime
conflicting claims over the ownership of a parcel of land. One night, occured. (Intod v. CA)
Roberto was so enraged that he decided to kill Ricardo. Roberto
asked his best friend, Rafael, to lend him a gun and drive him to
Ricardo's house. Rafael knew about Roberto's plan to kill Ricardo, Note : Take into consideration that an Impossible crime is a crime of
but agreed to lend him a gun nevertheless. Rafael also drove Roberto last resort. You only file for an impossible crime if the act performed
to the street corner nearest the house of Ricardo. Rafael waited for by the offender would not constitute a violation of another provision
him there, until the task had been accomplished, so that he could of the RPC. If the act of the offender would constitute another
drive Roberto to the next town to evade arrest. Roberto also asked violation of the RPC, that is the appropriate charge and not an
another friend, Ruel, to stand guard outside Ricardo's house, for the Impossible Crime.
purpose of warning him in case there was any danger or possible
witnesses, and to keep other persons away from the vicinity. All In the present case, the act of Ricardo constituted a crime against
three - Roberto, Rafael and Ruel - agreed to the plan and their property under Title X of the Revised Penal Code which is Malicious
respective roles. On the agreed date, Rafael drove Roberto and Ruel Mischief. (the 4th element of the Impossible Crime Doctrine is
to the nearest corner near Ricardo's house. Roberto and Ruel walked already wanting) Hence, they should be charged with such and not
about 50 meters where Ruel took his post as guard, and Roberto of an impossible crime
walked about five (5) meters more, aimed the gun at Ricardo's
bedroom, and peppered it with bullets. When he thought that he had (b) All of them are principal by direct participation because
accomplished his plan, Roberto ran away, followed by Ruel, and there is conspiracy involved in this case. Principals by direct
together they rode in Rafael's car where they drove to the next town participation are those who materially execute the crime and
to spend the night there. It turned out that Ricardo was out of town appeared at the crime scene, performed acts which is
when the incident happened, and no one was in his room at the time necessary in the commission of the crime
it was peppered with bullets. Thus, no one was killed or injured
during the incident.
II. 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
(a) Was a crime committed? If yes, what is/are the crime/s two were robbing the bank, as the three of them had previously
committed (2.5%); and (b) If a crime was committed, what is the planned. Ramiro, a policeman, responded to the reported robbery.
degree of participation of Roberto, Rafael, and Ruel? (2.5%) 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.
(a) The crime committed was impossible crime. Art. 4 par. 2 of
After their apprehension, Rico, Red, and Rod were charged with the
the RPC. The crime committed was crime against persons
special complex crime of robbery with homicide. Rico's defense was
but nevertheless did not occur because of its impossibility
that he never intended to shoot and kill the woman, only Ramiro. III. On February 5, 2017, Rho Rio Fraternity held initiation rites.
Red and Rod's defense was that they were not responsible for the Present were: (i) Redmont, the Lord Chancellor and head of the
death of the woman as they had no participation therein. fraternity; (ii) ten ( 10) members, one (1) of whom was Ric, and (iii)
five (5) neophytes, one (1) of whom was Ronald. Absent were: (i)
(a) Is Rico's defense meritorious? (2.5%)
Rollie, the fraternity's Vice Chancellor and who actually planned the
Any killing committed BY REASON OR ON THE OCCASION of initiation; and (ii) Ronnie, the owner of the house where the
the robbery, whether accidental or otherwise, is robbery with initiation was conducted. Due to the severe beating suffered by
homicide. Basta plinano ng sabay and they agreed to its execution, Ronald on that occasion, he lost consciousness and was brought to
conspiracy agad yan. the nearest hospital by Redmont and Ric. However, Ronald was
declared dead on arrival at the hospital. During the investigation of
the case, it was found out that, although Ronald really wanted to join
the fraternity because his father is also a member of the same
In robbery with homicide, the original criminal design of the
fraternity, it was his best friend Ric who ultimately convinced him to
malefactor is to commit robbery, with homicide perpetrated on the
join the fraternity and, as a prerequisite thereto, undergo initiation. It
occasion or by reason of the robbery. The intent to commit robbery
was also shown that Redmont and Ric did not actually participate in
must precede the taking of human life. The homicide may take place
the beating of the neophytes (hazing). The two (2) either merely
before, during or after the robbery. Absence of proof of an attempt to
watched the hazing or helped in preparing food. And, lastly, two (2)
stop the killing of one of the victims, plus the finding of conspiracy,
days prior thereto, Ronnie texted Rollie that the fraternity may use
make accused-appellants liable as principals for the crime of
his house as the venue for the planned initiation. Aside from those
Robbery with Homicide
who actually participated in the hazing, Redmont, Rollie, Ric, and
Ronnie were criminally charged for the hazing of Ronald that
resulted in the latter's death.
(b) Is Red and Rod's defense meritorious? (2.5%)
(a) Are the four criminally liable? (2.5%)
No, Red and Rod's contention are also not meritorious. In this case,
(a) Yes, all of them are liable under Anti-hazing law. The
there is conspiracy to commit a crime, although the conspiracy
presence of any person during the hazing is prima facie
among the offenders was only to commit robbery, whenever a
evidence of participation therein as principal, unless he
homicide has been made a consequence of or on the occasion of a
prevented the commission of the acts punishable therein.
robbery, all those who took part as principals in the commission of
the crime will also be liable as principals in the special complex (b) Can all those criminally charged be exonerated upon proof that
crime of robbery with homicide although they did not actually take Ronald, knowing the risks, voluntarily submitted himself to the
part in the homicide unless it clearly appeared that they endeavored initiation? Will the absence of proof that the accused intended to kill
to prevent the homicide. Since there is no clear indication to prevent the victim affect their liability? (2.5%)
the act of homicide, all of them are liable as principal.
No, because Anti-hazing law is a crime mala prohibita which
punishes an offense regardless of malice or criminal intent.
(a)People vs. Bayabos GR. No. 171222 Feb. 18, 2015 (Criminal Law brought her to Robert. After receiving his reward, Romy left
Review p. 252 Vol. II); Bar Question III (b)-People vs. Dungo GR. No. while Robert proceeded to have carnal knowledge with the
209464 July 1, 2015 (Criminal Law Review p. 253 Vol. II) girl. (a) For what felony may Robert and Romy be charged?
(2.5%) (b) Will your answer in (a) be the same if the victim is
a 15-year old lass who was enticed, through cunning and
IV. On the way home from work, Rica lost her necklace to a snatcher. deceit of Romy, to voluntarily go to the house of Robert
A week later, she saw what looked like her necklace on display in a where the latter subsequently had carnal knowledge with
jewelry store in Raon. Believing that the necklace on display was the her? (2.5%)
same necklace snatched from her the week before, she
surreptitiously took the necklace without the knowledge and consent (a) Both Robert and Romy are liable for statutory rape. In
of the store owner. Later, the loss of the necklace was discovered, statutory rape, it is not necessary that the victim was
and Rica was shown on the CCTV camera of the store as the culprit. intimated or force used against her because the law
Accordingly, Rica was charged with theft of the necklace. Rica raised presumes that the victim on account of her tender age
the defense that she could not be guilty as charged because she was does not and cannot have a will of her own.
the owner of the necklace and that the element of intent to gain was (b) No, the crime may fall under qualified seduction
lacking. What should be the verdict if: because the victim is over 12 years old and under 18
years of age. Qualified seduction involves sexual
(a) The necklace is proven to be owned by Rica? (2.5%) intercourse which was done with the consent of the
(a) Impossible crime of theft because in the crime of theft, the woman; otherwise, the crime is rape. The offended
mens rea is the taking of the property of another with intent woman must be over 12 but below 18 years.
to gain. There is no intent to gain on part of the offender in
this case. VI. A group of homeless and destitute persons invaded and
(b) It is proven that the store acquired the necklace from occupied the houses built by the National Housing Authority (NHA)
another person who was the real owner of the necklace? for certain military personnel. To gain entry to the houses, the group
(2.5%) intimidated the security guards posted at the entrance gate with the
(b) The store is liable under Anti-fencing law. Fencing is the firearms they were carrying and destroyed the padlocks of the doors
act of any person who, with intent to gain, shall buy, or of the houses with the use of crowbars and hammers. They claimed
dispose in any other manner deal in any article, item, object that they would occupy the houses and live therein because the
or anything of value which should be known, to have been houses were idle and they were entitled to free housing from the
derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft. government. For the reason that the houses were already awarded to
military personnel who have been found to have fully complied with
the requirements for the award thereof, NHA demanded the group
V. With a promise of reward, Robert asked Romy to bring to vacate within ten (10) days from notice the houses they occupied
him a young girl that he (Robert) can have carnal knowledge and were still occupying. Despite the lapse of the deadline, the
with. Romy agreed, seized an eight-year old girl and
group refused to vacate the houses in question. What is the criminal (a) Robbie is a quasi-recidivist. A quasi‐recidivist is a special
liability of the members of the group, if any, for their actions? (5%) aggravating circumstance where a person, after having been
convicted by final judgment, shall commit a new felony
before beginning to serve such sentence, or while serving the
None. Occupation is one of the modes of legally acquiring same. Since Robbie committed a crime while serving is
ownership under Art. 712 of the Civil Code sentence he may be a quasi-recidivist.
(b) (b) No, quasi-recidivism is a special aggravating
Other forms of swindling. It is a wrongful taking of property from its circumstance, it cannot be offset by ordinary mitigating
lawful possessor to the prejudice of the latter. The act is punishable circumstances. Since quasi-recidivism has no penalty of its
under Article 316 of the Revised Penal Code. own and it is not a felony, its effect is to increase the penalty
for the new felony to the maximum period
b) No, even if the acts committed arises on the same occassion cannot
be treated as single act that produces grave or less grave offenses
which can be complexed since both acts punishes on different penal
laws, one is SPL and the other is RPC.
XIX. Ricky was driving his car when he was flagged down by a
traffic enforcer for overspeeding. Realizing his undoing, but in a
hurry for a meeting, Ricky shoved a PhP500 bill in the traffic
enforcer's pocket and whispered to the latter to refrain from issuing
him a traffic violation receipt. The traffic enforcer still issued him a
/IA ticket, and returned his money. /v"f What crime, if any, was
committed by Ricky? (5%