(3) What is proximate cause?

Proximate cause has been defined as that cause. which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient
intervening cause. produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred (People v. Villacorta}.

As a rule, the offender is criminally liable for all the consequences of his felonious act, although not intended, it the
felonious act is the proximate cause of the felony.

(4) On his way home from office, ZZ rode in a jeepney. Subsequently, XX boarded the some jeepney. Upon reaching a
secluded spot in QC, XX pulled out a grenade from his bag and announced a hold-up. He told Zz to surrender his watch,
wallet and cellphone. Fearing for his life, ZZ lumped out at the vehicle. But as he tell, his head hit the pavement.
causing his Instant death. Il XX Liable for ZZ's death? Explain briefly.

Yes. XX is liable for ZZ's death because his acts of pulling out a grenade and announcing a hold-up, coupled with a
demand for the watch, wallet and cellphone of ZZ is felonious. and such felonious act was the proximate cause of ZZ's
jumping out of the jeepney, resulting in the latter's death. Stated otherwise, the death of ZZ was the direct natural and
logical consequence of XX‘s felonious act which created an immediate sense of danger in the mind of ZZ who tried to
avoid such danger by jumping out of the jeepney {People v. Arpa}.

(5) Alexander, an escaped convict, ran amuck on board a Superlines Bus bound for Manila from Bicol and killed ten (10)
persons. Terrified by the incident, Carol and Benjamin who are passengers of the bus, jumped out of the window and
while lying unconscious after hitting the pavement of the road, were ran over and crushed to death by a fast moving
Desert Fox bus tailing the Superlines Bus.

Can Alexander be held liable for the death of Carol and Benjamin although he was completely unaware that the two
jumped out of the bus? Explain.

Yes, Alexander can be held liable for the death of Carol and Benjamin because of felonious act at running was the
proximate cause of the victim's death. The rule is that when a person, by a felonious act. generates in the mind of
another a sense of imminent danger, prompting the latter to escape from or avoid such danger and in the process,
sustains injuries or dies, the person committing the felonious act is responsible for such injuries or death. ( vs. Valdez;
People vs. Arpa)

(6) Bhey eloped with Scott. Whereupon, Bhey's father, Robin, and brother, Rustom, went to Scott's house. Upon
reaching the house, Rustom inquired from Scott about his sister's whereabouts, while Robin shouted and threatened to
kill Scott. The latter then went downstairs but Rustom held his (Scott's) waist. Meanwhile Olive, the elder sister of
Scott, carrying her two-month old child, approached Rustom and Scott to pacify them. Olive attempted to remove
Rustom's hand from Scott's waist but Rustom pulled Olive's hand causing her to fall over her baby. The baby then died
moments later. Is Rustom criminally liable for the death of the child?

Yes, Rustom is criminally liable for the death of the child because his felonious act was the proximate cause of such
death. it was Rustom‘s act of pulling Olive's hand which caused the latter to fall on her baby. Had it not been for said act
of Rustom, which is undoubtedly felonious (at least slight coercion) there was no cause for Olive to fall over her baby. in
short,
Rustom‘s felonious act is the cause of the evil caused. Any person performing a felonious act is criminally liable for the
direct, natural and logical consequence thereof although different from what he intended.

(7) After, drinking one case of San Miguel beer and taking two plates of "pulutan". Binoy, a Filipino seamen, stabbed to
death Sio My, a Singaporean seaman, aboard M/V "Princess of the Pacific", on overseas vessel which was sailing in the
South China Sea. The vessel, although Panamanian registered is owned by Lucio Sy, a rich Filipino businessman. When
M/V "Princess of the Pacific" reached a Philippine Port at Cebu City, the Captain of the vessel turned over the assailant
Binoy to the Philippine authorities. An Information for homicide was filed against Binoy in the Regional Trial Court of
Cebu City. He moved to quash the information for lack of jurisdiction. if you were the Judge, will you grant the motion?
Why?
Yes. the Motion to Quash the Information should be granted. The Philippine court has no jurisdiction over the crime
committed since it was committed on the high seas or outside of Philippine territory and on board a vessel not
registered or licensed in the Philippines (US vs. Fowler)

it is the registration of the vessel in accordance with the laws of the Philippines. not the citizenship of her owner, which
makes it a Philippine ship. The vessel being registered in Panama, the laws of Panama govern while it is in the high seas.

(4) Define “corpus delicti".

Corpus Delicti literally means ”the body or substance of the crime" or the fact that a crime has been committed, but
does not include the identity of the person who committed it. (People vs. Pascual).

(5) What are the elements of "corpus delicti"?

The elements of corpus delicti are the following:

The actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged. it is a compound fact made up of two things:

a. the existence of a certain act or result forming the basis of the criminal charge;

b. the existence of a criminal agency as the cause of the act or result

The identity at the offender is not a necessary element of corpus delicti

(6) At a birthday party In Bogo, Cebu, A got intoxicated and started quarreiling with B and C. At the height of their
arguments, A left and took a hole from his house. after which he returned to the party and threatened to stab
everybody. B got scared and ran towards the seashore, with A chasing him. B ran up a steep incline along the shore and
was cornered on top of a cliff. Out of fear, B jumped from the cliff into the sea. A returned to the scene of their
confrontation and seeing that nobody was there, went home to steep. The next day, B's wife reported to the police
station that her husband had not yet come home.

A search was conducted by the residents of the barangay but after almost two days, B or his body could not be located
and his disappearance continued for the next few days. Based on the testimony of C and other guests, who had seen A
and B on top of the cliff, A was arrested and charged with Murder. In his defense, he claimed that since B‘s body has not
been found, there was no evidence of "corpus deiicti' and therefore. he should be acquitted.

is the defense of A tenable or not? State the reason(s) for your answer. (5%)

The defense of A is not tenable. "Corpus delicti‘ does not refer to the body of the purported victim which had not been
found. Even without the body of the purported victim being found, the offender can be convicted when the facts and
circumstances of a crime, the body of the crime or “corpus delicti' is established.

in other words, the non-recovery of the body of the victim is not a bar to the prosecution of A for Murder but the fact of
death and identity of the
victim must be established beyond reasonable doubt.

(7) The inter-island vessel M/ V Viva Lines 1, while cruising off Batanes, was forced to seek shelter at the harbor of
Kaoshiung, Taiwan because of a strong typhoon. While anchored in said harbor, Max, Baldo and Bogart arrived in a
speedboat, fired a bazooka at the bow of the vessel, boarded it and divested the passengers of their money and
jewelry. A passenger of M/ V Viva Lines 1, Dodong, took advantage of the confusion to settle an old grudge with
another passenger, and killed him. After their apprehension, all four were charged with qualified piracy before a
Philippine court.

Was Dodong correctly charged before the Philippine court for qualified piracy? Explain.
No, Dodong was not correctly charged with qualified piracy because committing piracy was never in his mind nor did he
have any involvement in the piracy committed. He merely took advantage of the situation in killing the passenger. He
should be charged with murder since there was evident premeditation and intent to kill.

(8) What are the constitutional provisions limiting the power of Congress to enact penal laws? (2012 BAR)

The constitutional provisions limiting the power of Congress to enact penal laws are the following:

i. The law must not be an ex post facto law or it should not be given a retroactive effect