Allan and his companions shot Petra, the driver of the Jeepney, resulting in her death, abandoned him

and took
possession of the vehicle, the crime committed is?
a. Qualified Carnapping
b. Robbery with Homicide
c. Carnapping with Homicide
d. A violation of VAWC

R.A. No. 6539 - An Act Preventing and Penalizing Carnapping

When the carnapping is committed by means of violence against or intimidation of any person or force upon
things; and the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall be imposed when the owner, driver or occupant
of the carnapped vehicle is killed or raped in the course of the commission of the carnapping or on the occasion
thereof.
Where accused-appellant and his companions shot the driver of the tricycle resulting in his death, abandoned
him and took possession of the vehicle, the crime committed is qualified carnapping.

An armed band tried to stop a grab car. The driver, who sensed that the band might commit robbery, did not
stop the grab car and instead drove it faster. The members of the band then fired at the grab car, killing one
passenger who was hit in the head.

a. Attempted Robbery with Homicide

b. Attempted Robbery and Homicide
c. Attempted Carnapping with Homicide
d. Attempted Carnapping and Homicide
They committed the crime of attempted robbery with homicide with band as a generic aggravating
circumstance. Article 297 of the Revised Penal Code provides that "Attempted... robbery committed under
certain circumstances. -- When... on the occasion of an attempted robbery a homicide is committed the person
guilty of such offenses shall be punished by reclusion temporal”

In the act of committing Rebellion, Peter killed 5 people. What is the crime committed by Peter?
a. With Private Purposes/Profit, he is liable for Rebellion only.
b. With Political Motives, he is only liable for Rebellion.
c. With Political Motives, he is liable for Rebellion and 5 counts of Murder.
d. With Private Purposes/Profit, he is liable for 5 counts of Murder only.

Those who killed persons in pursuance of the movement to overthrow the government are liable for rebellion
only where killings were done with political motives. Killing, robbing, etc. for private purposes or profit, without
any political motivation, would be separately punished and would not be absorbed in the rebellion.
Peter, jointly with his wife, legally adopted Petra with the hope that being a parent will fulfill his purpose in life.
Petra was 3 years old when they adopted her, 16 years after, the hopeful father-daughter relationship turned
sour. Peter ended it by killing Petra by throwing a hand grenade at her. What is peter liable for?
a. Parricide; She was her legally adopted daughter.
b. Parricide; An adopted child possesses equal rights of a legitimate child.
c. Homicide; She was not a legitimate child.
d. Murder; She was just an adopted child.

“Note that Art. 246 mentions "father, mother or child," the first two being the ascendants of the latter and the
latter being the descendant of the former, "whether legitimate or illegitimate." Only relatives by blood may be
legitimate or illegitimate. On the other hand, the "ascendants or descendants" must be legitimate. They, too,
must be relatives by blood. Therefore, an adopted father or adopted son, or father-in-law or son-in-law is not
included in this provision for parricide.” The throwing of hand grenade makes the crime Murder under
paragraph 3 of Art. 248

Alex intended to kill Teddie, who is not related to him. But due to his own mistake, he shot his wife, Bobbie,
instead. He told the police that it wasn't his intention to kill his wife. He was convicted of parricide because the
relationship was alleged in the complaint. As Alex's counsel, what is the best follow-up question or statement
that you can give to your client that will put the final nail in the coffin?
a. Do you have your marriage contract with you?
b. Show him the list of the requirements of a valid marriage then ask, is there anything missing
during your wedding?
c. There can be no acquittal. All the elements of parricide are present.
d. Lack of intent to kill wife is enough, no follow up questions needed.

Not A and B because Peter told the police that he killed his WIFE. According to Reyes, “The testimony of the
accused that he was married to the deceased was an admission against his penal interest. It was a
confirmation of the semper praesumitur matrimonio and the presumption "that a man and woman deporting
themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage."
Not D because knowledge of relationship in parricide is IMMATERIAL
C because “Parricide by mistake. If a person wanted to kill a stranger but by mistake killed his own father, will
it be parricide? Yes, but Art. 49 applies as regards the proper penalty to be imposed. If a person killed another,
not knowing that the latter was his son, will he be guilty of parricide? Yes, because the law does not require
knowledge of relationship between them.”
E, F, G and H, all armed, ransacked the house of I, a paralytic, and in the process, E shot I to death when he
refused to bring out his money. The shooting awakened the ten-year old son of I who immediately rushed to his
father, but he, too, was shot to death in cold blood. In the meantime, F went to the room of the wife of I and
had carnal knowledge with her through force. Thereafter; E, F, G and H fled with their loot. What criminal liability
did E, F, G and H incur?
a. Robbery with Murder
b. Robbery with Violence or Intimidation against persons
c. Robbery with Homicide
d. Robbery with Multiple Homicide and Rape

E, F, G and H are all liable for robbery with homicide since they constitute a band. The others who were present
at the time of the commission of the robbery did not prevent the killings of I and his ten-year old son by E and
the rape of the wife of I by F. The two killings are merged in the composite, integrate whole that is, robbery with
homicide, which is a single and indivisible offense, as the killings were perpetrated by reason or on occasion of
the robbery. Although rape also accompanied the robbery, the legal definition of the crime is still robbery with
homicide but the rape is to be considered as an aggravating circumstance.

Insulted by the manager of the bank where he was employed as security guard, A, enraged, shot the former,
who died on the spot. As A was about to leave the bank premises, he noticed the vault open. He entered it,
forced open a locked container and got the jewelry therein. If you were the fiscal, for what crime or crimes
would you prosecute A?

a. Murder
b. Robbery with Homicide
c. Homicide
d. Homicide and Robbery
Homicide and Robbery. It is not robbery with homicide because the purpose of A, the security guard, was not
to commit robbery. It is not murder because the aggression was preceded by the insult of the manager which
enraged the offender. So, the killing was attended by passion which negates the presence of treachery. The
taking of the jewelries was an afterthought as the offender entered the vault only when he noticed it was open
when he was about to leave the bank premises. The jewelries were in a locked receptacle which he forced open
while inside the bank premises. This is robbery with force upon things under Article 299, par. 2 of the Revised
Penal Code.

A, B, C and D all armed, robbed a bank, and when they were about to get out of the bank, policemen came and
ordered them to surrender but they fired on the police officers who fired back and shot it out with them.
Suppose a bank employee was killed and the bullet which killed him came from the firearm of the police officers,
with what crime shall you charge A, B. C and D?
a. Robbery with Violence or Intimidation against persons
b. Robbery with Homicide
c. Robbery with Force upon things
d. Robbery and Homicide
A, B, C and D should be charged with the crime of robbery with homicide because the death of the bank
employee was brought about by the acts of said offenders on occasion of the robbery. They shot it out with the
policeman, thereby causing such death by reason or on occasion of a robbery; hence, the special complex crime
of robbery with homicide.

A, B, C, D, and E, who was armed with a gun, entered the house of Y, who was living by himself, ransacked his
things and took his jewelry collection and cash worth P10000. W saw them going towards the hut and sensing
their evil intentions called some friends to act as a rescue party. As the five men were going out with their loot,
the rescue party opened fire and there was an exchange of gunshot between the rescue party and E. Killed were
A, in the five-man team, and another in the rescue party. The articles taken were recovered. What is the criminal
liability of B, C, D, and E?
a. Robbery with Homicide
b. Robbery by a Band and Homicide
c. Only Robbery by a Band for B, C, D and Robbery with Homicide for E
d. Only Robbery by a Band for B, C, D and Robbery and Homicide for E
Although the killing was committed after the consummation of the robbery, robbery with homicide is committed
because the killing was committed by reason of or on the occasion of the robbery. If the killing is prior or
subsequent to the robbery so long as it is directly related to the robbery, the crime committed is robbery with
homicide. Moreover, even if the victim of the robbery is not the victim of the homicide, robbery with homicide
is still committed because the law does not require that the person killed is the victim of the robbery.

Juan and Pedro harbored a long-standing grudge/resentment against Jose, who eloped with their sister, Maria,
and later abandoned her. They laid meticulous plans to kill him. After weeks of waiting, their chance came when
late one night, they cornered Jose as he was coming out of a disco-beer house in Makati, Metro Manila. The two
forcibly shoved him into a waiting car and drove to Tagaytay City, where they kept Jose hog-tied in a 2 x 3 meter
room. Two (2) days later, they killed Jose and dumped his body into ravine. What was the crime/crimes
committed by Juan and Pedro?

a. Kidnapping
b. Murder
c. Kidnapping with Murder
d. Kidnapping and Murder
Murder, since the purpose or intention of Juan and Pedro was to kill the victim, the killing being qualified by
evident premeditation. The detention of the victim for two days before he was killed was merely incidental.

Four accused fought against three other persons. One of whom was mortally wounded, but it did not appear
who inflicted the wounds. There was confusion. The four accused did not help one another in attacking the
injured person. What is the crime committed? Who can be held liable?
The accused were guilty of death caused in a tumultuous affray, and as the person who inflicted the wounds
could not be identified, they were all liable under the [second] paragraph of Art. 251, because they all used
violence.
Art 257 - Unintentional abortion. Peter struck Petra, three months pregnant on her hip with a bottle, causing
hemorrhage and miscarriage. Can he be held liable under this article?
YES, unintentional Abortion (B)

In the previous question, Would your answer be the same if the strike caused premature delivery of one of the
twin babies, the other not having been born because the woman died? What would be his liability?
Yes. Homicide with unintentional Abortion (C)

In question no. ___ Would your answer be the same if Peter gave his pregnant wife a bitter substance because
she suffered from stomach trouble then the woman suffered an abortion as a result? What would be his
liability?
Yes. Abortion (D)