1.Mr. Tigre is married to a nagger wife.

He filed a complaint with the Office of the

Correct answers:
The charge against the wife for psychological abuse shall be dismissed as there no law punishing the
same, nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege (There is no crime when there is no law punishing the
same)
Incorrect
2.During the COVID19 pandemic, Mr. Pasaway was caught by the Brgy. Tanods
walking along the street not wearing face mask. He was immediately arrested for
violating the health protocol of the Municipality of Istriktohay where he was
apprehended.  He was later on charged for Violation of RA 11332, the
"Mandatory Reporting of Notifiable Diseases and Health Events of Public Health
Concern Act". Mr. Pasaway argued that he could not be held criminally liable
under that law.  The prosecution countered that the said law could apply during a
pandemic, and that in this trying times the Court should be strict in the
interpretation and implementation of the law. Decide.

Correct answers:
The charge against Mr. Pasaway for not wearing facemask under RA 11332 could be dismissed (in
reference to the question). When there is doubt in the application of a criminal law, the same shall be
construed in favor of the accused under the doctrine of pro reo (legal basis/principle). The same is
true even during a pandemic. In this case, the right of the accused prevails over the interest of the
state or the public.
Incorrect
3.Mr. Seloso confronted Mr. Gwapings if the latter has a relationship with his wife.
Mr. Gwapings apologized and explained that he did it because his heart is
“broken” from a previous relationship. Mr. Seloso was deranged and he punched
Mr. Gwapings. The latter ran away but at about 20 meters, he fell down and died
before hitting the ground. Mr. Gwapings died of heart attack. The autopsy shows
that he has an enlarged heart. Mr. Seloso was charged for Homicide. If you were
for the defense, what would be your argument to exonerate the accused? If you
were for the prosecution, how would you argue to sustain the charge against the
accused?
Correct answers:
If I were the defense counsel, I would argue that the act of punching (reference to the problem) is
not the proximate cause of the death of the accused. The existing heart ailment of the victim cast
doubt as to the cause of his death (fact). Under the doctrine of equipoise rule, when the evidence of
the prosecution and the defense are so evenly balanced the appreciation of such evidence calls for
tilting of the scales in favor of the accused (legal basis).
If I were the prosecutor, I would argue that the accused is liable because he was committing a felony
when he punched (fact) Mr. Gwapings although he has no intention to kill the victim. He is liable as
to the consequence of his act.  A person committing a a is liable although the wrongful act done be
different from that which he intended (legal basis).
Incorrect
4.In the trial for murder, one witness testified that he saw the accused bringing a
bolo but the other witness testified that accused was bringing merely a wood.
The judge is in doubt whether he would convict the accused. Resolve.

Correct answers:
The judge shall acquit the accused. The presumption of innocence tilts the scale of justice in favor of
the accused under the equipoise rule (legal basis). In this case, the ambiguous evidence of the
prosecution due to the conflicting statements of the witnesses (in reference to the facts) shall lead to
the acquittal of the accused.
Incorrect
5.Mr. Bugsay killed Mr. Agi in a vessel not registered in the Philippines. They were
in the high seas when the incident happened. A case for Homicide was filed in a
Philippine Court. In his defense, Mr. Bugsay contended that his case is not triable
in the Philippine Court as the crime was committed outside its territory. Resolve.

Correct answers:
Mr. Bugsay is correct. The case against him is not under the jurisdiction of the Philippine Court as the
vessel is not registered
Incorrect
6.Mr. Pastilan wanted to killed Baaliwat. He saw him crossing the street. With an
intent to hit him, he accelerated the car towards him. However, when he was
about 50 meters away from him, he changed his mind and stepped on the brake.
The brake malfunctioned, the car did not stop, he was not able to sway the car
away from him, and then Mr. B was hit. He was killed instantly. Is Mr. A liable?

Correct answers:
He could be liable for imprudence.
Incorrect
7.At a gunpoint, Mr. Malaswa ordered Mr. Swertedaw to rape Ms. Kairuman
otherwise he would be killed. Mr. Swertedaw raped Ms. Kairuman. Mr. Swertedaw
was charged in court. The prosecutor argued that Mr. Swertedaw committed a
crime and deserves to be punished. Decide

Correct answers:
1.     – lack of voluntariness.
Incorrect
8.Mr. Malipayon grew up as happy person. He landed a good job and he is doing
good with his career. He met a girl and he was so in love. He thought everything
is perfect. One day, he found out that his girl cheated on her. He was devastated
and he could not cope from his heartbreak. He lost his job and he deemed his life
devoid of purpose. He has an easy life and he has never been confronted by
misery. In an afternoon, while he was still sleeping off his hangover, the police
barged into his room and arrested him. He was charged for killing his ex-
girlfriend. During trial, he said that it was not him who killed his girlfriend. He said
it was his other self. And when asked, how does he know, he answered, his
otherself told him. It was confirmed by a psychologist that accused suffered from
a multi personality disorder. Is Mr. Malipayon criminally liable?

Correct answers:
Mr. Malipayon is not criminally liable for lack deliberate intent or dolo when the crime was allegedly
committed. There is absence of intelligence when he was suffering from multiple personality disorder
when he killed his girlfriend.
Incorrect
9.Mr. Parapusil was ordered by Mr. Harangiton to kill Mr. Gigilo the paramour of
his wife. Mr. Parapusil then studied the movement of the wife. On that fateful day,
Mr. Parapusil waited for the car of the wife to emerge from gym building. When
he saw the car, he fired his automatic while his riding his motorcycle. Hitting the
car. He wanted to make sure that the target is killed so he alighted from his
motorcycle and check the passenger inside the car. He discovered that it was Mr.
Harangiton. He could not move. The lifeless body of his beloved staring at him
blankly. He was charged for Murder. His lawyer argued that he has no intention
to kill Mr. Harangiton. The man he loved. Decide

Correct answers:
Mr. Parapasul is criminally liable for killing Mr. Harangiton although he intended to kill Mr. Gigilo (in
reference to the issue). He was committing a felony when he fired shots with intent to kill (in
reference to facts). A mistake of identity or error in personae of the person to be killed will not
exonerate him from his evil acts. He is liable although the wrongful act done be different from that
which he intended (legal basis).
Incorrect
10.Mr. Kaskasero had a drinking spree with his friends. It was late at night and he
felt drunk. But he thought, he could still manage to drive. While on his way home,
he hit a pedicab plying the street. He did not see the pedicab because it has no
reflectorized devices. The pedicab driver is killed. Is he criminally liable?

Correct answers:
Mr. Kaskasero is criminally liable when he hit the pedicab on the street. He committed a felony by
means of culpa as he was considered negligent when he drove his car while under the influence of
liquor.

Mr. Suntok punched Mr. Warayato. The latter was hit and he fell into a pavement.
His head landed first which caused his death . Is he liable for homicide?

Correct answers:
Yes Praeter intentionem – where the consequence exceeded the intention. Punishable under Art. 4.
Incorrect
2.Mr. Dimalas, thinking that what he saw was Mr. Gwapo, fired a gun at him. It
turned out that it was not Mr. Gwapo but Mr. Maraksot. A case was filed against
Mr. Dimalas. He argued that he has no intention of killing Mr. Maraksot. Decide.

Correct answers:
Liable. Error in personae – mistake in the identity
Incorrect
3.Mr. Sniper focused his gun towards Mr. Target from a distance. When he pulled
the trigger, Mr. Target moved and it was Mr. Kairo who wat hit and died instantly.
A case was filed against Mr. Sniper for killing Mr. Kairo. He contended however,
that he has no intention of killing Mr. Kairo. Decide.

Correct answers:
Liable. 1 Aberratio ictus – mistake in the blow
Incorrect
4.Taking advantage with the quietness of the night, Mr. Parapatay entered the
house Mr. WAraysalabutan. The light from the street light helped him find the
room of Mr. Waraysalabutan. He smiled when he discovered that the door was
not locked. He turned the door knob and he moved inside. When he saw the bed,
he immediately lunged towards the bed and then executed an overhead stabbing
thrusts. It landed a pillow. Mr. Waraysalabutan was not on the bed. He felt an
object at the back of his head. When he turned, he stared a barrel of the gun of
Mr. Waraysalabutan. Is he criminally liable when executed a stabbing thrust?
Decide.

Correct answers:
Mr. Parapatay is criminally liable under impossible crime. Mr. Waraysalabutan was not on the bed
when Mr. Parapatay executd the stabbing thrust so the accomplishment of the crime was inherently
impossible. The act of stabbing could have been an offense against a person and the same was done
with an evil intent.
The requisites of an impossible crime are: (1) that the act performed would be an offense against
persons or property; (2) that the act was done with evil intent; and (3) that its accomplishment was
inherently impossible, or the means employed was either inadequate or ineffectual.   To be
impossible , the act intended by the offender must be by its nature one impossible of
accomplishment. There must be either (1) legal impossibility, or (2) physical impossibility of
accomplishing the intended act in order to qualify the act as an impossible crime.
Incorrect
5.Mr. Buno stabbed Mr. Makadamo on his arm which is not fatal. Mr. Makadamo
was able to run away but he was able to come across Mr. Tawtaw who is likewise
an enemy. Mr. Tawtaw hacked him but this time the wound was mortal. Mr.
Makadamo was not able to put up a defense because of the wound inflicted by
Mr. Buno on his arm. Mr. Makadamo was brought to hospital and a medical
operation was performed on his wound and he was able to survive. Three days
after, there was a complication in his operation and he died. Is Mr. Buno and Mr.
Tawtaw criminally liable?

Correct answers:
Mr. Tawtaw is criminally liable for the death of Mr. Makadamo. His act of hacking Mr. Makadamo is
the proximate cause of the latter’s death. Mr. Makadamo was brought to the hospital and undergo
operation due to the act of Mr. Tawtaw. The complication in the operation is not a supervening event
which would break the sequence leading to the death of Mr. Makadamo.
Incorrect
6. Mr. Malalabad was wating for Mr. Halagad to pass by his house. He had been
accusing him to have an illicit relationship with his wife. When he saw him
passing on foot, Mr. Malalabad gestured a gun with his finger and pointed the
same to Mr. Halagad and he shouted, Bang, Bang, Bang! At the corner of his eye,
Mr. Halagad saw something is being pointed at him. When he heard the shout
Bang Bang Bang, he leaped forward and rolled his body to avoid being hit. He
saw that Mr. Malalabad has no firearm and merely uses his hand. So he acted like
he is drawing a firearm with his hand, and then Mr. Malalabad surrendered. Is Mr.
Malalabad liable?

Correct answers:
Mr. Malalabad is not liable under the category of impossible crime. The act performed, the pointing
of a finger (in relation to facts), would not have been an offense against a person (legal basis).
Neither there is an intention to harm Mr. Halagad (legal basis).

Mr. Buno stabbed Mr. Makarit directed towards his chest but the latter was able
to parry the attack and disarm the weapon from Mr. Buno.

Correct answers:
Attempted Homicide. Mr. Buno commenced the felony by stabbing Mr. Makarit on his chest. He
failed, however, to perform all acts of execution to kill Mr. Makarit, by a cause not by his own
spontaneous desistance, as the latter was able to parry the attack and disarm from the former the
weapon.
Incorrect
2.Mr. Buno stabbed Mr. Nalipat and the latter was hit on his chest and fell to the
ground. Mr. Buno ran away but Mr. Nalipat survived in the hospital. According to
the doctor, without the medical intervention, Mr. Nalipat could have died due to
loss of blood.

Correct answers:
Frustrated Homicide. Mr. Buno was able to perform all acts of execution to kill Mr. Nalipat when he
was able to inflict a mortal wound. However, Mr. Nalipat survived due to medical intervention, which
is independent of the will of Mr. Buno.
Incorrect
3.Mr. Buno stabbed Mr. Makisangkayon on his chest but the latter was able to
parry the attack. A friend of Mr. Makisangkayon came to help thus Mr. Buno fled
away.

Correct answers:
Attempted Homicide. Mr. Buno commenced the felony when he stabbed Mr. Makisangkayon
towards his chest. After Mr. Makisangkayon parried the stabbing thrust, he could have continued the
attack but desisted when he saw a friend of Mr. Masangkayon about to help. Said desistance is
spontaneous on his part.
Incorrect
4.Mr. Buno stabbed Mr. Karatista on his chest but the latter was able to parry the
attack. Mr. Buno immediately ran away without pursuing his attack.

Correct answers:
Not attempted Homicide. The act of parrying the stabbing thrust merely suspended the attack. Mr.
Buno could have continued the attack but halted the same by his own spontaneous desistance when
he ran away.
Incorrect
5.Mr. Buno stabbed Mr. Makarit directed toward his chest but the former was
able to hit the arm only which was not mortal. When he noticed that there were
witnesses around, Mr. Buno ran away. When examined, Mr. Makarit suffered
serious physical injury.

Correct answers:
Attempted Homicide. Mr. Buno commenced the felony when he stabbed Mr. Makarit towards his
chest. The act of running away after he saw some witnesses could not be considered as spontaneous
desistance on his part. His decision to cease from attacking was due to the presence of witnesses.