Sei sulla pagina 1di 1

Conspiracy (1997) A had a grudge against F.

Deciding to kill F, A and his friends, B, C, and D, ar med themselves with knives and proceeded to the house of F, taking a taxicab for the purpose. About 20 meters from their destination, the group alighted and aft er instructing E, the driver, to wait, traveled on foot to the house of F. B pos itioned himself at a distance as the group's lookout. C and D stood guard outsid e the house. Before A could enter the house, D left the scene without the knowle dge of the others. A stealthily entered the house and stabbed F. F ran to the st reet but was blocked by C, forcing him to flee towards another direction. Immedi ately after A had stabbed F, A also stabbed G who was visiting F. Thereafter, A exiled from the house and, together with B and C, returned to the waiting taxica b and motored away. G died. F survived. Who are liable for the death of G and th e physical injuries of F? SUGGESTED ANSWER: A alone should be held liable for the death of G. The object of the conspiracy o f A. B, C, and D was to kill F only. Since B, C, and D did not know of the stabb ing of G by A, they cannot be held criminally therefor. E, the driver, cannot be also held liable for the death of G since the former was completely unaware of said killing. Criminal Law Bar Examination Q & A (1994-2006) For the physical injuries of F, A, B and C. should be held liable therefore. Eve n if it was only A who actually stabbed and caused physical injuries to G, B and C are nonetheless liable for conspiring with A and for contributing positive ac ts which led to the realization of a common criminal intent. B positioned himsel f as a lookout, while C blocked F's escape. D, however, although part of the con spiracy, cannot be held liable because he left the scene before A could enter th e house where the stabbing occurred. Although he was earlier part of the conspir acy, he did not personally participate in the execution of the crime by acts whi ch directly tended toward the same end (People vs. Tomoro, et al 44 Phil. 38), In the same breath, E, the driver, cannot be also held liable for the infliction of physical injuries upon F because there is no showing that he had knowledge o f the plan to kill F. Conspiracy; Avoidance of Greater Evil (2004) BB and CC, both armed with knives, attacked FT. The victim's son, ST, upon seein g the attack, drew his gun but was prevented from shooting the attackers by AA, who grappled with him for possession of the gun. FT died from knife wounds. AA, BB and CC were charged with murder. In his defense, AA invoked the justifying circumstance of avoidance of greater e vil or injury, contending that by preventing ST from shooting BB and CC, he mere ly avoided a greater evil. Will AA's defense prosper? Reason briefly. (5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, AA's defense will not prosper because obviously there was a conspiracy among BB, CC and AA, such that the principle that when there is a conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all, shall govern. The act of ST, the victim's son, appear s to be a legitimate defense of relatives; hence, justified as a defense of his father against the unlawful aggression by BB and CC. ST's act to defend his fath er's life, cannot be regarded as an evil inasmuch as it is, in the eyes of the l aw, a lawful act. What AA did was to stop a lawful defense, not greater evil, to allow BB and CC a chieve their criminal objective of stabbing FT.