ANSWERS FOR THE MIDTERM EXAMS - CRIM LAW 1

1. Criminal law is that branch or division of law which defines crimes, treats of their nature, and provides for their punishment. Characteristics of Criminal law: a. GENERAL binding on all persons who live or sojourn in the Philippines. b. TERRITORIAL criminal laws undertake to punish crimes committed within the Philippine territory. c. PROSPECTIVE penal laws cannot make an act punishable in a manner in which it was not punishable when committed. Criminal laws are strictly construed against the state and liberally in favor of the accused. 2. Mistake of fact is a misapprehension of fact on the part of the person who caused injury to another. No criminal liability because of the absence of criminal intent. Requisites: a. That the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed them to be. b. That the intention of the accused in performing the act should be lawful c. That the mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the accused. Ah Chong vs. Oanis In the case of Ah Chong, there is mistake of fact. In this case, had the facts been as Ah Chong believed them to be, which is a valid ground for selfdefense, he would have been justified in killing the intruder. There is an innocent mistake of fact without any fault or carelessness on the part of the accused, because, having no time or opportunity to make any further inquiry, and being pressed by circumstances to act immediately, the accused had no alternative but to take the facts as they then appeared to him, and such facts justified his act of killing the deceased. In the case of Oanis, mistake of fact does not apply. In this case, even if it were true that the victim was the notorious criminal, the accused would not be justified in killing him while the latter was sleeping, the accused had ample time and opportunity to ascertain his identity without hazard to themselves, and could even effect a bloodless arrest if any reasonable effort to that end had been made, as the victim was unarmed. There are no circumstances whatever which would press them to immediate action. 3. Exceptions to extraterritoriality rule: (Art.2 RPC) a. Should commit an offense while on a Phil. ship or airship; b. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippines or obligations and securities issued by the Govt of the Phils.;

c. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these Islands of the obligations and securities mentioned in the preceding number; d. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of their functions; or e. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations, defined in Title One of Book Two of the RPC. 4. Different stages of a felony: a. Consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present; b. Frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator; c. Attempted when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. Mala in se vs. Mala prohibita Mala in se intent is necessary for criminal liability to arise. Also, generally, mala in se refer to felonies defined and penalized by the RPC. However, even if the act is punishable by a special penal law, if it is inherently immoral, then it is a malum in se. Mala prohibita intent is not necessary for incurring liability. Only an inquiry as to whether the law has been violated suffices for one to be liable for a malum prohibitum crime. Generally mala prohibita crimes refer to crimes punishable under special provided it is not inherently immoral. 5. Motion granted. Philippine courts has no jurisdiction over the said offense. Philippine courts have no jurisdiction over offenses committed on board foreign warships in territorial waters. Warships are always reputed to be the territory of the country to which they belong and cannot be subjected to the laws of another state. (U.S. vs. Fowler, 1 Phil. 614) 6. This case falls as an impossible crime. An impossible crime is an act which would be an offense against persons or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means. In this case, the act done would have been an offense against persons, which is homicide or murder because Steve tried to shot Eugene at the back of his head. However, due to the employment of ineffectual means, by reason of the absence of any bullet in the gun, it would have been a crime of murder or homicide. 7. Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea the act itself does not make a man guilty unless his intention were so.

Yes, it is relevant and necessary in felonies committed by means of dolo. In order for one to be criminally liable for a felony, it is necessary that it is done with malice, or an intent to do an injury to another. Culpa or crimes committed through negligence do not require criminal intent for criminal liability to arise. Also, crimes which are considered mala prohibita do not also require that criminal intent is present in the commission of the crime. 8. A) B) The corporal is liable for all of the crimes or offenses committed against the persons of the kid and the robber, and the damage to the television set. Since the act of firing an armalite without a justifiable reason is a felony, Nesty should be liable for all the natural and logical consequence of his acts. 9. No, A is not correct. There is no mistake of fact and neither does the Ah Chong case applicable in this case. For the case of Ah Chong to be applicable, there must be an innocent mistake of fact without any fault or carelessness on the part of A. He should have exercised reasonable diligence in ascertaining the true identity of D before he stabbed him. Indeed, A has the opportunity to inquire whether the person who is approaching is in fact B since he is not pressed by any circumstance which would call for an immediate action. Furthermore, to avoid criminal liability, the act done by A must be justifying or exempting, had the facts he believed them to be are true. However, the facts of this case does not suggest that the act done by A could have been a justifying or an exempting one. Still no. The exempting circumstance of uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury does not apply in this case. For the exempting circumstance of uncontrollable fear to be appreciated in this case, it is imperative for the accused to establish the following requisites: a) existence of an uncontrollable fear; b) the fear must be real and imminent; and c) fear of an injury is greater than or at least equal to that committed. In this case, only the first requirement, the existence of an uncontrollable fear by reason of the repeated bullying by B, is present. However, the second and third requisites were not present. It cannot be said in this case that the fear is real and imminent. D never committed any overt act which would indicate of any intention to hurt A. Also, As fear of physical injury is obviously not greater than or at least equal to the killing that was committed. 10. Conspiracy as a felony are those specifically punished under the RPC, although they are only preparatory acts. When conspiracy itself is a crime, no overt act is necessary to bring about criminal liability. These are punishable as a separate offense. Mere conspiracy alone is not punishable under the law unless it provides otherwise. Conspiracy as a matter of incurring criminal liability relates to a crime actually committed, it is not a felony but a manner of incurring criminal

liability, that is, when there is conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. In this case, there must be an overt act done before the conspirators become criminally liable. 11. A Only A, B, C and D are criminally liable. The infliction of stab wounds against E is the proximate cause of Es death. It is an establish rule that a person is criminally responsible for acts committed by him in violation of the law and for all the natural and logical consequences resulting therefrom. Since conspiracy is present in this case, A, B, C and D should be made liable for the same offense although they have different participations, this is because in conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. C is liable although he did not participated in the killing of E because he was a co-conspirator of the said offense. One who participates in an express conspiracy, may avoid criminal liability by not appearing at the place where the crime is to be committed on the date and time of the crime. In this case, C only left the crime scene after he saw E was stabbed. In order to avoid criminal liability, he should have tried to stop the commission of the offense to manifest his desistance in the said conspiracy. F & G are also not liable. Their acts are not the proximate cause of Es death. There was also neither malice nor intent to commit a wrong on their part which negates their criminal liability. 11.B The crime was committed in its consummated stage. In this case, all the elements necessary for the execution and accomplishment of the crime of murder/homicide are present. 12. Jojo is criminally liable. Any person who creates in anothers mind an immediate sense of danger, which causes the latter to do something resulting in the latters injuries, is liable for the resulting injuries. 13. Diana should be made liable. Although Bebots act of stripping and taking off of Dianas panties is sufficient to constitute as an unlawful aggression against her honor. Clearly, Bebots act would give Diana the belief that Bebot is attempting to rape her. However, the injury inflicted is not reasonable enough to justify the killing as a self-defense. There was no just or reasonable cause for striking a blow therewith in the center of the body, where the principal vital organs are seated. Hence, she can only avail of the mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense.

14. No. In this case, the act of Bebots having sexual intercourse with Diana obviously constitutes as an attack upon her honor. The means employed by Diana was also reasonable since at the time of the assault, she doesnt have sufficient time to contemplate or deliberate on how to retaliate against her assailant.

15. Patricia is not criminally liable. Victims of Battered Woman Syndrome need not wait for an actual physical assault at the time of the killing, otherwise, she could have been dead before she has the opportunity to defend herself. It is already sufficient that she has underwent under the 3 phases of it which are: a) tension-building phase; b) acute battering stage; and c) tranquil-loving phase. 16. Without unlawful aggression, a person cannot invoke a justifying or a mitigating circumstance.