(1) Distinguish motive from intent.

(1996; 1999)

ANSWER:

Motive is the reason which impels one to commit an act for a definite result, while intent is the
purpose to use a particular means to effect such result. Intent is an element of the crime (except in
unintentional felonies), whereas motive is not.

( 2 ) W h a t d o y o u u n d e r s t a n d b y  a b e r r a t i o i c t u s , e r r o r i n p e r s o n a e 
a n d  p r a e t e r i n t e n t i o n e m ? Do they alter the criminal liability of the accused?
(1989; 1993; 1994; 1999)

ANSWER:

Aberratio ictus or mistake in the blow occurs when the offender delivered the blow at his intended
victim but missed, and instead such blow landed on an unintended victim. The situation generally
brings about complex crimes where from a single act, two or more grave or less grave felonies
resulted, namely the attempt against the intended victim and the consequences on the unintended
victim. As complex crimes, the penalty for the more serious crime shall be the one imposed and in
the maximum period. It is only when the resulting felonies are only light that complex crimes do
not result and the penalties are to be imposed distinctly for each resulting crime.

Error in personae or mistake in identity occurs when the offender actually hit the person to whom
the blow was directed but turned out to be different from and not the victim intended. The criminal
liability of the offender is not affected, unless the mistake in identity resulted to a crime different
from what the offender intended to commit, in which case the lesser penalty between the crime
intended and the crime committed shall be imposed but in the maximum period (Art. 49, RPC).

Praeter intentionem or where the consequence went beyond that intended or expected. This is a
mitigating circumstance (Art. 13, par. 3, RPC) when there is a notorious disparity between the act
or means employed by the offender and the resulting felony, i.e., the resulting felony could not be
reasonably anticipated or foreseen by the offender from the act or means employed by him.

(3) Distinguish mala in se from mala prohibita. (1988; 1997; 1998; 2001; 2003)

ANSWER:

Mala in se is wrong from its very nature, as most of those punished in the RPC. Hence, in its
commission, intent is an element and good faith is a defense. The test to determine whether an
offense is mala in se is not the law punishing it but the very nature of the act itself.
On the other hand, an act mala prohibita i s wrong because it is prohibited by law. Without the law
punishing the act, it cannot be considered a wrong. Hence, the mere commission of that act is what
constitutes the offense punished and criminal intent will be immaterial for reason of public policy.

(4) What are heinous crimes? Name ten specific heinous crimes. (1994; 1995; 1997)

ANSWER:

Heinous crimes are those grievous, odious, and hateful offenses and which by reason of their
inherent or manifest wickedness, viciousness, atrocity, and perversity, are repugnant and
outrageous to the common standards and norms of decency and morality in a just, civilized and
ordered society. They are punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. (WHEREAS CLAUSE, R.A.
7659)
The ten specific heinous crimes are:

1. Treason
2. Qualified Piracy
3. Qualified Bribery
4. Parricide
5. Murder
6. Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention
7. Robbery with Homicide
8. Destructive Arson
9. Rape committed by two or more persons, or with a deadly weapon or with homicide
10. Plunder

(5) What are the instances when the death penalty could not be imposed, although it should
otherwise be meted out? (1997; 1998)

ANSWER:

Under Art. 47 of the RPC, the death penalty shall not be imposed when:

1. The guilty person is below 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the crime, oR

2. Is more than 70 years of age, or

3. When upon appeal of the case by the SC, the required majority vote is not obtained for the
imposition of the death penalty.

(6) When is the benefit of the Indeterminate Sentence Law not applicable? (1999; 2003)

ANSWER:

The Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply to:

1. Persons convicted of offenses punishable with death penalty or life imprisonment;

2. Those convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason;

3. Those convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition or espionage;
4. Those convicted of piracy;
5. Those who are habitual delinquents;
6. Those who shall have escaped from confinement or evaded sentence;
7. Those who violated the terms of conditional pardon granted to them by the Chief Executive;
8. Those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year;
9. Those who, upon the approval of the law (December 5, 1933), had been sentenced by final
judgment; 10. Those sentenced to the penalty of destierro or suspension.

(7) What is an impossible crime? (1993; 2003)

ANSWER:

It 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. (Art. 4, par. 2)
But where the acts performed which would have resulted in an impossible crime also 1) constitute
an offense under the RPC, or
 (2) would subject the accused to criminal liability although of a different category, the penalty to be
imposed should be that for the latter and not that for an impossible crime.

(8) Distinguish instigation from entrapment. (1990; 1995; 2003)

ANSWER:

Instigation  takes place when a peace officer induces a person to commit a crime. Without the
inducement, the crime would not be committed. Hence, it is exempting by reason of public policy.
Otherwise, the peace officer would be a co-principal.

On the other hand, entrapment signifies the ways and means devised by a peace officer to entrap or
apprehend a person who has committed a crime. With or without the entrapment, the crime has
been committed already. Hence, entrapment is not mitigating.

(9) What is the purpose of the Probation Law? (1986; 1989)

ANSWER:

The purposes of the Probation Law are:

 To promote the correction and rehabilitation of an offender by providing him with

individualized treatment;
 To provide an opportunity for the reformation of a penitent offender which might be less
probable if he were to serve a prison sentence; and
 To prevent the commission of offenses.

(10) What is the doctrine of implied conspiracy?(1998; 2003)

ANSWER:

The doctrine of implied conspiracy holds two or more persons participating in the commission of a
crime collectively responsible and liable as co-conspirators although absent any agreement to that
effect, when they act in concert, demonstrating unity of criminal intent and a common purpose or
objective. The existence of a conspiracy shall be inferred or deduced from their criminal
participation in pursuing the crime and thus the act of one shall be the act of all.

(11) Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code states that the provisions of the said Code shall be
applicable to crimes committed not only within the territorial jurisdiction of the
Philippines, but also outside thereof, in the five (5) instances mentioned therein. What are
the underlying reasons behind, or rationale for, each of those five (5) instances? Explain
fully one by one.
ANSWER:
The five instances provided in Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code in which its
provisions are applicable outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines and the underlying
reasons behind each of said instances are the following:
1. When the offender should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship.
 For this exception to apply, the Philippine ship or airship must be registered under Philippine
laws. As such it is considered an extension of Philippine territory.
2. When the offender should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the
Philippines or obligations and securities issued by the government. The reason is to protect
Philippine Currency notes and obligations or securities issued by the government in order to
preserve the financial credit and stability of the government.
3. When the offender should be liable for acts committed with the introduction in the
Philippines of obligations and securities mentioned in paragraph 2. The reason is to protect the
economic interests of the Philippines as the introduction of such forged or counterfeit obligations
and securities into the country is as dangerous, if not more, as the forging or counterfeiting of the
same.
4. When the offender, while being a public officer or employee should commit an
offense in the exercise of his functions. The offense committed by the public officer affects the
integrity of the office and is against public administration of the Philippines. The law should
follow the public officer wherever he may be. If such is not punished by the laws of the country
where the public officer is at the time of its commission, or is not triable by its courts, the
absence of this exception would not make the provisions of the Code applicable since the crime
is committed outside of Philippine territory.
5. When the offender should commit any of the crimes against the national security
and the law of nations. The reason is to safeguard the existence of the state.

After drinking one (1) case of San Miguel beer and taking two plates of "pulutan",
Binoy, a Filipino seaman, stabbed to death Sio My, a Singaporean seaman, aboard M/V
"Princess of the Pacific", an 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? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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, 1 Phil 614)
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.

Is malice or criminal intent an essential requisite of all crimes? Explain.

May criminal intent be presumed to exist? Discuss.
Answer
Malice or criminal intent is not an essential element in all crimes. It is essential only in
crimes which are mala in se. In an offense which is mala prohibita, criminal intent is not an
element Criminal intent is presumed to exist if the act is unlawful. However, in some crimes, a
specific intent cannot be presumed because it is an integral element thereof. For example, in
frustrated homicide, the specific intent to kill is not presumed. If it is not proved, the crime will
not be frustrated homicide but serious physical injuries.

Discuss the distinctions between dolo and culpa. Give an example of each.
Answer
 "Dolo" implies deliberate intent. It is equivalent to malice. "Culpa" means
fault, that is, there is no intent or malice. The wrongful act is the result of imprudence,
negligence, lack of skill or lack of foresight. A felony is committed by means of dolo or culpa
and must be voluntary,

Distinguish between crimes mala in se and crimes mala prohibita. May an act be
malum in se and be, at the same time, malum prohibitum?
Answer.
Crimes mala in se are felonious acts committed by dolo or culpa as defined in the
Revised Penal Code. Lack of criminal intent is a valid defense, except when the crime results
from criminal negligence. On the other hand, crimes mala prohibita are those considered wrong
only because they are prohibited by statute. They constitute violations of mere rules of
convenience designed to secure a more orderly regulation of the affairs of society.
Yes, an act may be malum in se and malum prohibitum at the same time. In People v.
Sunico, et aL. (CA 50 OG 5880) it was held that the omission or failure of election inspectors
and poll clerks to include a voter's name in the registry list of voters is wrong per se because it
disenfranchises a voter of his right to vote. In this regard it is considered as malum in se.
Since it is punished under a special law (Sec. 101 and 103, Revised Election Code), it is
considered malum prohibitum.

a) There are three distinctions between mala in se and mala prohibita:

1. A crime mala in se is a natural wrong. On the other hand, an offense mala prohibita
is a wrong only because it is prohibited by law;
2. In the commission of a crime mala in se, intent is an element whereas in the
commission of an offense mala prohibits, criminal intent is immaterial; and
3. Crimes mala in se are punished by the Revised Penal Code although the Revised
Penal Code may cover special laws while offense mala prohibita are punished by special laws.
b) A crime may be committed without criminal intent in two cases:
1. Offense, punishable as mala prohibita; an
2. Felonies committed by means of culpa.

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.
Answer:
Yes, Alexander can be held liable for the death of Carol and Benjamin because of
felonious act of 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. (US vs.
Valdez, 41 Phil, 1497; People vs. Apra, 27 SCRA 1037.)

Vicente hacked Anacleto with a bolo but the latter was able to parry it with his
hand, causing upon him a two-inch wound on his right palm. Vicente was not able to hack
Anacleto further because three policemen arrived and threatened to shoot Vicente if he did
not drop his bolo. Vicente was accordingly charged by the police at the prosecutor's office
for attempted homicide. Twenty-five days later, while the preliminary investigation was in
progress, Anacleto was rushed to the hospital because of symptoms of tetanus infection on
the two-inch wound inflicted by Vicente. Anacleto died the following day.
Can Vicente be eventually charged with homicide for the death of Anacleto?
Explain.
Answer:
Yes, Vicente may be charged of homicide for the death of Anacleto, unless the tetanus
infection which developed twenty five days later, was brought about by an efficient supervening
cause. Vicente's felonious act of causing a two- inch wound on Anacleto's right palm may still be
regarded as the proximate cause of the latter's death because without such wound, no tetanus
infection could develop from the victim's right palm, and without such tetanus infection the
victim would not have died with it.

Maryjane had two suitors - Felipe and Cesar. She did not openly show her
preference but on two occasions, accepted Cesar's invitation to concerts by Regine and
Pops. Felipe was a working student and could only ask Mary to see a movie which was
declined. Felipe felt insulted and made plans to get even with Cesar by scaring him off
somehow. One day, he entered Cesar's room in their boarding house and placed a rubber
snake which appeared to be real in Cesar's backpack. Because Cesar had a weak heart, he
suffered a heart attack upon opening his backpack and seeing the snake. Cesar died
without regaining consciousness. The police investigation resulted in pinpointing Felipe as
the culprit and he was charged with Homicide for Cesar's death. In his defense, Felipe
claimed that he did not know about Cesar's weak heart and that he only Intended to play a
practical joke on Cesar.
Is Felipe liable for the death of Cesar or will his defense prosper? Why?
(5%}
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Felipe is liable for the death of Cesar but he shall be given the benefit
of the mitigating circumstance that he did not intend to commit so grave a wrong as that which
was committed (Art. 13, par. 3, RPC).
When Felipe intruded Into Cesar's room without the latter's consent and took liberty with
the letter's backpack where he placed the rubber snake. Felipe was already committing a felony.
And any act done by him while committing a felony is no less wrongful, considering that they
were part of "plans to get even with Cesar".
Felipe's claim that he intended only "to play a practical joke on Cesar" does not
persuade, considering that they are not friends but in fact rivals in courting Maryjane. This case
is parallel to the case of People vs. Pugay, et al.

X, a domestic servant of Y has been nurturing a grudge against him for long. One
day, while Y was seated on his favorite rocking chair, X suddenly fired a volley of shots
towards Y. It turned out, however, that Y has been dead from a severe stroke an hour ago.
For what crime can X be held liable? Reasons.
Answer
X is liable for an impossible crime of murder. The reason is the inherent impossibility of
killing Y since he has been dead due to a severe stroke one hour before X shot him. The acts of
execution would have been a crime against persons were it not for the inherent impossibility of
its accomplishment. (Art. 4, par. 12, RPC). Subjectively, X is a criminal although objectively, no
crime is committed. X cannot be liable for trespass to dwelling because being a domestic servant,
his entrance to the house of Y cannot be against the will of the latter.
 On April 3, 1992, at about 10:00 in the evening, JP, Aries and Randal, all armed
with automatic weapons, went to Barangay Pula. Ella, being the guide, directed her
companions to the room in the house of Elsa. Whereupon, JP, Aries and Randal fired their
guns at her room. Fortunately, Elsa was not around as she attended a prayer meeting that
evening in another barangay in Laurel.
JP, et al, were charged and convicted of attempted murder by the Regional Trial
Court at Tanauan, Batangas.
On appeal to the Court of Appeals, all the accused ascribed to the trial court the
sole error of finding them guilty of attempted murder.
If you were the ponente, how will you decide the appeal?
Answer:
If I were the ponente, I will set aside the judgment convicting the accused of attempted
murder and instead find them guilty of impossible crime under Art. 4, par. 2, RPC, in relation
to Art. 59, RPC. Liability for impossible crime arises not only when the impossibility is legal,
but likewise when it is factual or physical impossibility, as in the case at bar. Elsa's absence from
the house is a physical impossibility which renders the crime intended Inherently incapable of
accomplishment. To convict the accused of attempted murder would make Art. 4, par. 2
practically useless as all circumstances which prevented the consummation of the offense will
be treated as an incident independent of the actor's will which is an element of attempted or
frustrated felony (Intod vs. CA, 215 SCRA 52).

Buddy always resented his classmate, Jun. One day. Buddy planned to kill Jun by
mixing poison in his lunch. Not knowing where he can get poison, he approached another
classmate, Jerry to whom he disclosed his evil plan. Because he himself harbored
resentment towards Jun, Jerry gave Buddy a poison, which Buddy placed on Jun's food.
However, Jun did not die because, unknown to both Buddy and Jerry, the poison was
actually powdered milk.
1, What crime or crimes, if any, did Jerry and Buddy commit? [3%]
2. Suppose that, because of his severe allergy to powdered milk, Jun had to be
hospitalized for 10 days for ingesting it. Would your answer to the first question be the
same? [2%]
Answer:
1. Jerry and Buddy are liable for the so-called "impossible crime" because, with intent to
kill, they tried to poison Jun and thus perpetrate Murder, a crime against persons. Jun was not
poisoned only because the would-be killers were unaware that what they mixed with the food of
Jun was powdered milk, not poison. In short, the act done with criminal intent by Jerry and
Buddy, would have constituted a crime against persons were it not for the inherent inefficacy of
the means employed. Criminal liability is incurred by them although no crime resulted, because
their act of trying to poison Jun is criminal.
2. No, the answer would not be the same as above. Jerry and Buddy would be liable
instead for less serious physical injuries for causing the hospitalization and medical attendance
for 10 days to Jun. Their act of mixing with the food eaten by Jun the matter which required
such medical attendance, committed with criminal intent, renders them liable for the resulting
injury.

a} What is an impossible crime? (2%)

b) Is an impossible crime really a crime? (2%)
c) A, B, C and D, all armed with armalites, proceeded to the house of X. Y, a
neighbor of X. who happened to be passing by, pointed to the four culprits the room that X
occupied. The four culprits peppered the room with bullets. Unsatisfied, A even threw a
hand grenade that totally destroyed X's room. However, unknown to the four culprits, X
was not inside the room and nobody was hit or injured during the Incident. Are A, B, C
and D liable for any crime? Explain. (3%)
d) Carla, 4 years old, was kidnapped by Enrique, the tricycle driver paid by her
parents to- bring and fetch her to and from school. Enrique wrote a ransom note
demanding P500,000.00 from Carla's parents in exchange for Carla's freedom. Enrique
sent the ransom note by mail. However, before the ransom note was received by
Carla's parents, Enrique's hideout was discovered by the police. Carla was rescued while
Enrique was arrested and incarcerated. Considering that the ransom note was not received
by Carla's parents, the investigating prosecutor merely filed a case of "Impossible Crime to
Commit Kidnapping" against Enrique. Is the prosecutor correct? Why? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) An impossible crime is an act which would be an offense against person or property,
were if not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment
of inadequate or ineffectual means (Art. 4, par. 2, RPC),
b) No, an impossible crime is not really a crime. It is only so-called because the act
gives rise to criminal liability. But actually, no felony is committed. The accused is to be
punished for his criminal tendency or propensity although no crime was committed.
c) Yes. A, B. C and D are liable for destructive arson because of the destruction of
the room of X with the use of an explosive, the hand grenade. Liability for an impossible crime
Is to be imposed only if the act committed would not constitute any other crime under the
Revised Penal Code. Although the facts involved are parallel to the case of Intod vs. Court of
Appeals (215 SCRA 52), where it was ruled that the liability of the offender was for an
impossible crime, no hand grenade was used in said case, which constitutes a more serious crime
though different from what was intended,
d) No, the prosecutor Is not correct in filing a case for "impossible crime to commit
kidnapping" against Enrique. Impossible crimes are limited only to acts which when performed
would be a crime against persons or property. As kidnapping is a crime against personal security
and not against persons or property, Enrique could not have incurred an "impossible crime" to
commit kidnapping. There is thus no impossible crime of kidnapping.