CRIMINAL LAW (PART I)

III.

Mowie is entitled to be released.

Penals laws are generally prospective in application except when the Congress
enacts law which is favorable to the accused that it could be given retroactive
application.

Here Mowie was initially charged for the violation of Anti-Vagrancy Law in 2010
but when Congress passed a law decriminalizing the vagrancy, the law should be applied
retroactively because it is favorable to Mowie.

Hence, Mowie is entitled to be released.

OR

Mowie is entitled to be released.

Criminal liability is totally extinguished by the express repeal of the penal law or
decriminalization of the act.

Here the decriminalization of vagrancy extinguished Mowie’s criminal liability.

Hence, he is entitled to be released.

IV.

Rainier’s contention is untenable.

Art. 4 of the RPC states that criminal liability shall be incurred by any person
committing a felony although the wrongful act done be different from that which he
intended.

Here it is clear that Rainier already performed an overt act when he fired the
gun with intent to kill Anzon. But because of Luiz’ intervention, it is him who died
instead. Even though Rainier’s intention was to kill Anzon and not Luiz he would still be
liable for the resulting death of his overt act.

Hence, Rainier is not correct for saying that he is not liable for Luiz’ death for
lack of intent to kill him.

V.

Darren is still criminally liable. He is being punished because of his criminal

propensity and dangerousness although objectively no crime has been committed.

Art. 4 of the RPC states that criminal liability shall be incurred by any person
performing an act which would be an offense against persons or property, were it not for
CRIMINAL LAW (PART I)

the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of

inadequate or ineffectual means.

Here Darren’s act of stabbing would have been an offense against persons,
definitely the act was done with evil intent, the act was not accomplished because it is
impossible to kill a dead person, and his action does not constitute any violation of the
RPC. Although objectively, no crime is committed, still Darren shall be punished of
Impossible crime stated in Art. 4 of the RPC.

VI.

Margarita is not correct.

Art. 8 of the RPC states that proposal to commit felony is punishable only in
cases in which the law specially provides a penalty therefor.

Here Alloysius proposed to Margarita to commit the crime of murder by

poisoning Lucifer. The RPC does not provide any penalty for the proposal to commit
murder. Hence, Alloysius act of proposing the commission of murder is not punishable.

VIII.

Jaypax defense will not prosper.

Art 11 par. 4 provides that any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury,
does an act which causes damage to another, provided that the following requisites are
present: 1) That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists; 2) That the injury feared be
greater than that done to avoid it and; 3) That there be no other practical and less
harmful means to prevent it.

Here the first requisite of that the evil sought to be avoided actually exists is
lacking in the case at bar. What Jaypax prevented is not an evil act but rather a lawful act
of Santi defending his father from being killed by Jenno and Carlos.

Hence, Jaypax defense will not prosper.

IX.

Grey is still criminally liable for committing estafa despite lack of demand letter
and acceptance of partial payments.

Under the RPC, demand letter is not one of the requisite to constitute estafa.
Jennie let go of the goods upon the issuance of the check of Grey. By doing so, Grey
employed deceit that constitutes estafa. Further Art. 89 of the RPC does not provide
partial payment of debt being a mode of extinction of criminal liability.
CRIMINAL LAW (PART I)

Hence, Grey is still criminally liable.

X.

The charge will not prosper.

Under PD 1612, fencing is the act of any person who, with intent to gain for
himself or for another, shall buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell, or dispose
of, or shall buy and sell, or in any other manner deal any article, item, object, or anything
of value which he knows, or should be known to him, to have been derived from the
proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft.

Here Detective Chloe Decker has no knowledge that the bags she bought and
eventually sold were proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft or that the bags were
actually proceeds of such crimes.

Hence lacking the requisite that the bags were proceeds of the crime of theft or
robbery, the charge should not prosper.

XIII.

Yes, A would be liable as a principle by inducement.

Art. 17 of the RPC provides that a principal by inducement are those person who
directly for or induce others to commit the crime.

Here A’s giving of a price, reward or promise to B is a form of inducement that

makes him a principal by inducement. Personal motive of killing C is immaterial to
determing A’s participation in the crime.

Hence, A is a prinicipal by inducement.

XV.

Lily is not correct. They are liable for conspiracy to commit terrorism under a
special penal law.

Art. 8 of the RPC provides that conspiracy to commit a felony is punishable only
in cases in which the specially provides a penalty therefor.

Here, conspiring to commit an act of terrorism is punishable under Human

Security Act (check kung tama tong special penal law na na-cite ko).

Hence Lily, Danny and Farrah are criminally liable.

CRIMINAL LAW (PART I)

XVIII.

Death of Ging extinguishes criminal liability as well as the civil liability based
solely thereon.

Art. 89 of the RPC provides that criminal liability is totally extinguished by the
death of the convict, as to the personal penalties and as to pecuniary penalties, liability
thereof is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before the final
judgment. Further, in People v. Amistoso, the Supreme Court has held that in case the
accused dies prior to final judgment, among others, death of the accused pending
appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well as civil liability based
solely thereon.

In the case at bar, the death of Ging occurred pending appeal of her conviction
or before final judgment. Hence, her death extinguishes criminal and civil liability
attached to the crime of murder.