CRIMINAL RECORD 09-08-18

Q: What is conspiracy?

A: A conspiracy exist when two or more people come to an agreement concerning the commission of a
felony and decide to do it

Q: Article 9

A:

Q: What are light felonies (amended)?

A: Light felonies are those infraction of law for the commission of which the penalty of arresto menor or
a fine of 40,000 pesos, or both, is provided

Q: You wanted to kill Paculdo because she turned you down. You asked your classmates to leave the
classroom because you will shoot the room with your armalite from the outside. Everyone left leaving
Paculdo inside. You started to shoot the room not knowing that Paculdo lying flat on the floor. You
failed to hit her. Are you liable for an impossible crime?

A: No, the 3rd requisite of impossible crime which is that its accomplishment is inherently impossible or
that the means employed is either inadequate or ineffectual is absent. Paculdo being inside the room
but manage to avoid being hit by the bullets renders the crime to be possible, no factual impossibility.
The act would be in its attempted stage where the intended consequence is the killing of Paculdo but
not all the acts of execution are performed because she was not hit mortally.

Q: Following the facts of the case mentioned above, what if Adaya didn’t left the room and continued
to study while Paculdo was lying flat on the floor. She was then hit by 5 bullets which instantly killed
her. What crime are you liable for?

A: A complex crime of attempted homicide with homicide. Aberratio ictus cases generally gives rise to
complex crimes unless the resulting consequence is not a grave or less grave felony.

Q: Rosales woke up to Mr. Devanadera touching her chest. She got away and told the authorities that
the latter was attempting to rape her. Is Devanadera liable for attempted rape?

A: No, his overt acts does not positively indicates his intent to rape her. Over act is some physical activity
or deed, indicating intention to commit a particular crime. It is more than planning or preparation, which
if carried to its complete termination following its natural course, without being frustrated by external
obstacles or desistance of the perpetrator will logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete crime. The
act of touching her chest is still indeterminate to ascertain his purpose. Therefore, Devanadera shall only
be liable for acts of lasciviousness.

Q: Following the case mentioned above, what if, at the time of trial, Devanadera was asked by the
prosecutor what he felt at that time. He responded that he wants to have carnal knowledge with Ms.
Rosales. He wanted to rape her. Is he now liable for attempted rape?

A: Still No. The intention of the accused must be viewed from the nature of the acts (overt acts)
executed by him, and not from his admission.
Q: Article 10

A: Offense which are or in the future

Q: What is unnecessary in article 10?

A: The first sentence is superfluous. In rules of statutory construction, statutes in Pari Materia (on the
same subject or matter) with regard to general and special statutes, the special must prevail since it
evinces the legislative intent more clearly than that of a general statute and must be taken as intended
to constitute an exception to the general act. The circumstance that the special law is passed before or
after the general act does not change the principle.

Q: You wanted to commit robbery. You entered the house of Mr. Huang with a knife. You demanded
from him his childhood pictures. You instructed that he should not get close to you, fearing his big
body, and throw the album on the floor near you and to stay on the corner of the room. Before you
can even pick it up, SPO1 Almacen arrived and placed you under arrest. Consummated robbery?

A: Consummated Robbery, even if you are not able to physically take, it was already taken away from
Mr. Huang and within your dominion and command. (people v. salvilla)

Q: Requisites of self defense

A: (1) Unlawful aggression, (2) reasonable necessity of the mean employed to prevent or repel it, (3) lack
of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

Q: Instances where the 3rd requisites is not present.

A: (1) when no provocation at all, (2) when the provocation is insufficient, (3) when the provocation was
sufficient, it was not given by the person defending himself, (4) Provocation is not proximate and
immediate to the act of aggression. (Reyes p.192)

Q: What is the doctrine of state of necessity?

A: Under article 429 of the new civil code, the owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to
exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this purpose, he may use such force as
may be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or
usurpation of his property.

Q: What is the doctrine of self-help?

A:

Q: Who are these relatives provided in under par. 2?

A: Spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters or of his

relatives by affinity in the same degree, and those by consanguinity within 4th civil degree.

Q: What requisite is different in par 2?

A: In case the provocation was given by the person attacked, the person defending has no part therein.

Q: What requisite is different in par 3?

A: The person defending not be induced by revenge, resentment or other evil motive.

Q: par. 4, Art. 11?

A: Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does an act which cause damage to another,
provided that the following requisites are present: First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exist.
Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it. Third. That there be no other
practical and less harmful means of preventing it.

Q: You and Mr. Devanadera is on a ship. The ship was sinking so you tossed off his LV bags otherwise,
the ship will be totally submerge. Liable?

A: Yes but only for civil liability. Requisites of Par.4 are present. 1st, you would have died if you haven’t
tossed off his bags. 2nd, death is a greater injury than losing those precious bags. 3rd, you have no other
choice.

Q: par. 5

A: Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office.

Q: Do we follow the principle of retreat to the wall?

A: No, what we follow is stand ground when in the right.

Q: Is it correct that there is an incomplete defense when any one of the requisites is not present?

A: No, the first requisite which is the unlawful aggression must always be present. Otherwise the 2
following requisites will have no basis. There will be no aggression to prevent or repel.

Q: par. 6

A: Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose

Q: 4 people conspired to commit murder in front of CEU and talked about in detail what they were
going to do. They got caught by the police because someone snitched on them. Will they incur
criminal liability?

A: No, because according to Article 8 of the RPC, conspiracy and proposal to commit a felony are
punishable only in cases which the law specially provides a penalty. There is no law punishing conspiracy
to commit murder.

Q: (Follow-up) They were able to commit the murder. When they got caught, must the prosecution
prove that they conspired and agreed to commit murder in front of CEU?

A: They can be convicted through proving an implied conspiracy.

Q: What is the effect of proving an implied conspiracy, or in general?

A: All the accused should be equally criminally liable. There is collective responsibility for all of them
since the act of one is the act of all.

Q: What is the quantum evidence to prove conspiracy?

A: Proof beyond reasonable doubt

Q: If the conspiracy was not proved, what will be their liability?

A: Individual liability for their own actions.

Q: Paril poured gasoline on Olano. Accidentally, Valera lighted a match and made Olano a human
torch. Olano died. Is there conspiracy in this case?

A: Hypo is similar to the case People v. Pugay. From the case: There is nothing in the records showing
that there was previous conspiracy or unity of criminal purpose and intention between the two accused-
appellants immediately before the commission of the crime. There was no animosity between the
deceased and the accused Pugay or Samson. Their meeting at the scene of the incident was accidental.
It is also clear that the accused Pugay and his group merely wanted to make fun of the deceased. Hence,
the respective criminal responsibility of Pugay and Samson arising from different acts directed against
the deceased is individual and not collective, and each of them is liable only for the act committed by
him.

Q: What did the Court rule in the Lamahang case?

A: Accused was charged with attempted trespassing.

Q: What are the special penal laws that penalize conspiracy?

A: AMLA, arson, access device fraud, terrorism under the Human Security Act, finance terrorism, drugs

Q: What is battering?

A: Act of inflicting physical harm upon the woman or her child resulting to the physical and psychological
or emotional distress

Q: What is the battered woman syndrome?

A: Refers to a scientifically defined pattern of psychological and behavioral symptoms found in women
living in battering relationships as a result of cumulative abuse

Q: What is unlawful aggression?

A: It is the sudden, unprovoked, and unlawful act which places a person’s life and limb in danger which is
actual, real or imminent.

Q: Is a slap on the face considered unlawful aggression?

A: Yes, because the face represents a person and his dignity, therefore, placing in danger a person’s
dignity, rights and safety.

Q: Mr. Olano saw Faculdo and nudged her with his foot. Is that unlawful aggression?

A: No. Read case of Sabio.

Q: Is the unlawful aggression required in self-defense the one contemplated in battered woman
syndrome? Do we require unlawful aggression in battered woman syndrome?
A: No, because of the existence of a cycle of violence. There must be at least 2 cycles, which has 3
phases: the tension-building phase, the acute battering incident, and the tranquil, loving phase. Read
case of People v. Genosa.

Q: What is the effect of battered woman syndrome?

A: As provided in the case of People v. Genosa, 2000:

1. The woman believes that the violence was her fault

2. She has an inability to place the responsibility of the violence elsewhere
3. She fears for her life and/or her children’s lives
4. She has an irrational belief that the abuser is omnipresent and omniscient

Q: What are the requisites provided for in the case of Genosa?

A: Basis: People v. Genosa, 2004 (the possibility of self-defense arising from the BWS)

1. Each of the phases of the cycle of violence must be proven to have characterized at least 2
battering episodes between the appellant and her intimate partner.
2. The final acute battering episode preceding the killing of the batterer must have produced in the
battered person’s mind an actual fear of an imminent harm from her batterer and an honest
belief that she needed to use force in order to save her life.
3. At the time of the killing, the batterer must have posed probably – not necessarily immediate
and actual – grave harm to the accused, based on the history of violence perpetrated by the
former against the latter.

Q: What is the effect if there is unlawful aggression and the other requisites are not present?

A: Ordinary mitigating circumstance

Q: If there are 2 requisites present including unlawful aggression?

A: Privileged mitigating circumstance

Q: When is there a reverse trial?

A: When the accused invokes self-defense and the burden of evidence is shifted from the prosecution to
the defense.

Q: Limlingan at Almacen nagbakasyon sa Boracay. Sa pagbalik mo, nakita mo si Tangonan sa property

mo at yung shanty house na ginawa niya. Pwede mo ba siyang itulak palabas sa property mo?

A: No, because you are required to respect any person possessing a property (provided for in the Civil
Code). You can only use the doctrine of self-help immediately. You can use force if sa harap mo
gumagawa ng fence, gumagawa ng bahay because you have the right to protect your property against
any usurper. Pero kung nadatnan mong may bahay at bubong na, bawal na. Anything that you do from
that point on will be considered unlawful aggression and the person you’re trying to kick out may invoke
self-defense. Hindi pwedeng paalisin ang informal settlers without a court order.