Turga, Camille Amethyst V.

Writing Exercise 1
Legal Research
Nov 24, 2019

1) Rico, a hit man, positioned himself at the rooftop of a nearby building of a bank, to serve as a lookout
for Red and Rod while the two were robbing the bank, as the three of them had previously planned.
Ramiro, a policeman, responded to the reported robbery. Rico saw Ramiro and, to eliminate the danger of
Red and Rod being caught, pulled the trigger of his rifle, intending to kill Ramiro. He missed as Ramiro
slipped and fell down to the ground. Instead, a woman depositor who was coming out of the bank was
fatally shot. After their apprehension, Rico, Red, and Rod were charged with the special complex crime of
robbery with homicide. Rico's defense was that he never intended to shoot and kill the woman, only
Ramiro. Red and Rod's defense was that they were not responsible for the death of the woman as they had
no participation therein.

a) Is Rico’s defense meritorious?

No, Rico’s defense will not prosper. He is still liable under Art.4(1) of the Revised Penal Code,
stating that criminal liability shall be incurred [b]y any person committing a felony (delito) although the
wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. 1 It is clear from Rico’s overt act of aiming
and firing at policeman Ramiro that the intent to kill was present despite the victim not being the intended
target. 2 The accused is still liable for the woman’s death because it was a ―natural and probable
consequence‖3 of the firing of his gun. Similar to the facts of this case, in People v. Flora, the gunman
was still held liable for the death and injuries caused by his misfires. 4

b) Is Red and Rod’s defense meritorious?

No, Red and Rod’s defense will not prosper. Conspiracy, under the Revised Penal Code, ―exists
when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to
commit it.‖5 In the case at hand, there is an express conspiracy; a prior agreement between the defendants 6
to commit the crime of robbery, shown overtly in their common unity in both act and purpose.

Red and Rod enlisted the aid of Rico, an armed person to ensure their success.7 That Rico shot the
wrong person, or that Red and Rod were not directly involved with the shooting is irrelevant because in

1
An Act Revising the Penal Code and Other Penal Laws [REVISED PENAL CODE], Act No. 3815, Art. 4(1),
(1932).
2
US v. Mendieta, 34 Phil. 242. (1914)
3
An Act to Ordain and Institute the Civil Code of the Philippines [CIVIL CODE], Republic Act No. 386, Art. 2202,
(1950).
4
People v. Flora, G.R. No. 129509, Jun. 23, 2000.
5
REVISED PENAL CODE, art.
8(2).
6
Macapagal-Arroyo v. People, G.R. No. 220598, Jul. 19, 2016.
7
REVISED PENAL CODE, art. 14(8).

WE1 Turga 1
 conspiracies, ―the act of one is the act of all,‖8 but only if the acts were done in furtherance of the
conspiracy.9 Whereas for acts not in furtherance of the conspiracy, the co-conspirators will be held
individually rather than collectively liable. Here it is clear that Rico’s overt attempt to kill policeman
Ramiro was in furtherance of the conspiracy - it was to impede Ramiro from performing his duties as a
public officer and put a stop to the robbery. That it hit the woman instead of Ramiro is irrelevant – the
fact is that its purpose was still to further the conspiracy. Thus, Red and Rod would share liability with
Rico for the woman’s death.1011

2) On February 5, 2017, Rho Rio Fraternity held initiation rites. Present were: (i) Redmont, the Lord
Chancellor and head of the fraternity; (ii) ten (10) members, one (1) of whom was Ric, and (iii) five (5)
neophytes, one (1) of whom was Ronald. Absent were: (i) Rollie, the fraternity's Vice Chancellor and
who actually planned the initiation; and (ii) Ronnie, the owner of the house where the initiation was
conducted.

Due to the severe beating suffered by Ronald on that occasion, he lost consciousness and was brought to
the nearest hospital by Redmont and Ric. However, Ronald was declared dead on arrival at the hospital.

During the investigation of the case, it was found out that, although Ronald really wanted to join the
fraternity because his father is also a member of the same fraternity, it was his best friend Ric who
ultimately convinced him to join the fraternity and, as a prerequisite thereto, undergo initiation. It was
also shown that Redmont and Ric did not actually participate in the beating of the neophytes (hazing).
The two (2) either merely watched the hazing or helped in preparing food. And, lastly, two (2) days prior
thereto, Ronnie texted Rollie that the fraternity may use his house as the venue for the planned initiation.

Aside from those who actually participated in the hazing, Redmont, Rollie, Ric, and Ronnie were
criminally charged for the hazing of Ronald that resulted in the latter's death.

a) Are the four criminally liable?

All are criminally liable. Under Section 8 of the Anti-Hazing Law, Redmont and Ric’s mere
presence is prima facie evidence that the two also participated in the hazing, unless otherwise proven.
Under the same provision, despite Rollie’s absence, as an officer that planned the hazing, he is still liable
as a principal. Ronnie, the owner of the house where the hazing took place is liable as an accomplice due
to his knowledge of the hazing and failing to take any action to prevent it.12

8
People v Nierra, 96 SCRA 1 (1980)
9
People v Peralta, G.R. No. L-19069; other cases reiterating the doctrine: People v Salvacion, People v de la Cerna,
People v Flora.
10
REVISED PENAL CODE, art. 293.
11
Id. art. 295.
12
An Act Regulating Hazing and Other Forms of Initiation Rites in Fraternities, Sororities, and Other Organizations
and Providing Penalties Thereof [ANTI-HAZING LAW OF 1995], Republic Act 8049, Art. 8 (1995).

WE1 Turga 2
b) Can all those criminally charged be exonerated upon proof that Ronald, knowing the risks, voluntarily
submitted himself to the initiation? Will the absence of proof that the accused intended to kill the victim
affect their liability?

No, the accused cannot be exonerated upon proving Ronald voluntarily gave consent. The act of
hazing is mala prohibita punishable by the Anti-Hazing Law. Section 12 of RA 11053 amending RA
8049 explicitly states that any form of consent or waiver of objection from the recruit, neophyte, or
applicant is void and not binding. The accused cannot avail of the victim’s consent as a defense. 13For
hazing to occur requires consenting neophytes in the first place. In Villareal v. People, the victim and
other neophytes consented and were oriented on what to expect at the hazing ritual.14 They were told that
they could quit the ritual at any time, were given rests and assigned ―auxiliaries‖ to protect them from
excessive blows. Despite this, the accused were still held liable.

The absence of proof of the intent to kill of the accused will neither relieve them of criminal
liability.That there was no intention to commit so grave a wrong, also known as praeter intentionem, may
only be interpreted as a mitigating circumstance. 15 It is not a defense, because as iterated in People v.
Delim, ―If the victim dies because of a deliberate act of the malefactor, intent to kill is conclusively
presumed.‖16 In addition to crimes committed through dolo or criminal intent, crimes may also be
committed through culpa - without criminal intent and instead arising from ―imprudence, negligence, lack
of foresight, or lack of skill.‖17 Crimes committed through imprudence and negligence are still punishable
under Art. 365 of the Revised Penal Code, 18 and the accused are still liable for Ronald’s death because it

13
An Act Prohibiting Hazing and Regulating Other Forms of Initiation Rites of Fraternities, Sororities, and Other
Organizations, and Providing Penalties for Violations Thereof, Amending for the Purpose Republic Act No. 8049,
Entitled "An Act Regulating Hazing and Other Forms of Initiation Rites in Fraternities Sororities, and Organizations
and Providing Penalties Therefor‖ [ANTI-HAZING LAW OF 2018], Republic Act No. 11053, Section 12 (2018).
14
Villareal v. People, G.R. No. 151258, Feb. 1, 2012.
On cross-examination, witness Bienvenido Marquez testified thus:
Judge Purisima: When you testified on direct examination Mr. Marquez, have you stated that there was a
briefing that was conducted immediately before your initiation as regards to what to expect during the
initiation, did I hear you right?
Witness: Yes, sir.
Judge Purisima: Who did the briefing?
Witness: Mr. Michael Musngi, sir and Nelson Victorino. Judge Purisima Will you kindly tell the Honorable
Court what they told you to expect during the initiation?
Witness: They told us at the time we would be brought to a particular place, we would be mocked at, sir.
Judge Purisima: So, you expected to be mocked at, ridiculed, humiliated etc., and the likes? Witness Yes,
sir.
Judge Purisima: You were also told beforehand that there would be physical contact? Witness Yes, sir at
the briefing.
15
REVISED PENAL CODE, art.13(3).
16
People v Delim, G.R. No. 142773, Jan. 8, 2003.
17
Id. art. 3.
18
Id. art. 365.
ART. 365. Imprudence and negligence. — Any person who, by reckless imprudence, shall commit any act which,
had it been international, would constitute a grave felony, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum
period to provision correccional in its minimum period; if it would have constituted less grave felony, the penalty of
arresto mayor in its minimum and period shall be imposed.

WE1 Turga 3
 is a logical consequence 19 of the hazing, even though the unlawful act intended was only to inflict
physical injuries.20 Regardless, the Anti-Hazing Law already took this into account during the legislative
deliberations. Senator Joey Lina, the principal author of RA 8049, says that even though organizations do
not intend to kill their members during hazing sessions, hazing should still be made a separate criminal
offense rather than relying only on the provisions of the Revised Penal Code to discourage the practice.
21
The Anti-Hazing Law itself is silent on the manner of causing injury or damage to the hazing victim
affecting criminal liability. In cognizance of legislative intent, it now becomes manifest that the Anti-
Hazing law does not distinguish between the modality of committing the crime, because its aim is to
completely dissuade all organizations from engaging in hazing.

3) On the way home from work, Rica lost her necklace to a snatcher. A week later, she saw what looked
like her necklace on display in a jewelry store in Raon. Believing that the necklace on display was the
same necklace snatched from her the week before, she surreptitiously took the necklace without the
knowledge and consent of the store owner. Later, the loss of the necklace was discovered, and Rica was
shown on the CCTV camera of the store as the culprit. Accordingly, Rica was charged with theft of the
necklace. Rica raised the defense that she could not be guilty as charged because she was the owner of the
necklace and that the element of intent to gain was lacking.

a) The necklace is proven to be owned by Rica?

Under Art. 428 of the Civil Code, an owner can retrieve their stolen property;22 and if a third
person comes into possession of the item from a public sale and in good faith, he/she is entitled to
compensation before the item is retrieved by the original owner. 23 24 Under normal circumstances, Rica

Any person who, by simple imprudence or negligence, shall commit an act which would otherwise constitute a
grave felony, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods; if would have
constituted a less serious felony, the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed.
When the execution of the act covered by this article shall have only resulted in damages to the property of another,
the offender value of said damages to three times such value, but which shall in no case be less than 25 pesos.
A fine not exceeding 200 pesos and censure shall be imposed upon any person who, by simple imprudence or
negligence, shall cause some wrong which, if done maliciously, would have constituted alight felony.
20
Id. art. 4(1).
21
Villareal v. People, id.
Senator Guingona. Most of these acts, if not all, are already punished under the Revised Penal Code.
Senator Lina. That is correct, Mr. President.
xxx

Senator Guingona. So, what is the rationale for making a new offense under this definition of the crime of
hazing?
Senator Lina. To discourage persons or group of persons either composing a sorority, fraternity or any
association from making this requirement of initiation that has already resulted in these specific acts or
results, Mr. President.
That is the main rationale. We want to send a strong signal across the land that no group or association can
require the act of physical initiation before a person can become a member without being held criminally
liable.
22
CIVIL CODE, art. 428.
23
CIVIL CODE, art. 559.
ART. 559. The possession of movable property acquired in good faith is equivalent to title. Nevertheless, one who
lost any movable or has been unlawfully deprived thereof, may recover it from the person in possession of the same.

WE1 Turga 4
would have no criminal liability for merely taking back what she believed in good faith to be her
necklace. However, at the time of taking the necklace, there was only belief, and no certainty that the
necklace was her own; being negligent and acting hastily and in extrajudicial fashion in taking the
necklace rather than file a civil suit under Art. 428 and retrieve it 25, or a criminal case under the Anti-
Fencing Law. In de Garcia v. Court of Appeals, for example, the parties were not negligent in verifying
whether the diamond ring the petitioner was wearing the same ring stolen from the respondent. The
parties referred to a veteran jeweler to examine the ring. 26That diligence is not present in this case; it is an
established doctrine that negligence negates Rica’s defense of mistake of fact, therefore she still has
criminal liability. 2728
Since the necklace Rica took was her own, she is guilty of an impossible crime 29, an act that
would be an offense to persons and property owing to it being impossible to accomplish or the means to
commit the crime are inadequate or ineffectual. If the necklace was not hers, the taking of the necklace
would have constituted theft, which has the following elements: (1) that there be a taking of personal
property; (2) that said property belongs to another; (3) that the taking be done with intent to gain; (4) that
the taking be done without the consent of the owner; and (5) that the taking be accomplished without the
use of violence or intimidation against persons or force upon things. 30
To qualify it as an impossible crime, it must be either a legal or factual impossibility. Legal impossibility
occurs when the intended acts, even if completed, will not amount to a crime under the law. Factual
impossibility on the other hand arises when extraneous circumstances prevent the consummation of the
crime. 31
Rica will be penalized in accordance to Art. 59 of the Revised Penal Code; that those guilty of
impossible crimes are penalized with either arresto mayor or a 200-500 pesos fine. 32

If the possessor of a movable lost or of which the owner has been unlawfully deprived, has acquired it in good faith
at a public sale, the owner cannot obtain its return without reimbursing the price paid therefor.
24
Aznar v. 13 SCRA 486 (1965)
25
CIVIL CODE, art. 428
26
De Garcia v. CA 37 SCRA 160.
27
People v. Oanis, 74 Phil. 257 (1943)
28 th
LUIS B. REYES,REVISED PENAL CODE 47 (19 ed. 2017).
29
Id. art. 4(2).
Art. 4. Criminal liability. — Criminal liability shall be incurred:
xxx
2. By any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or property, were it not for the
inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or an account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.
30
Santos v People, G.R. No. 77429
31
Intod v CA, G.R. No. 103119, Oct. 21, 1992
32
REVISED PENAL CODE, art. 59.
Art. 59. Penalty to be imposed in case of failure to commit the crime because the means employed or the aims
sought are impossible. — When the person intending to commit an offense has already performed the acts for the
execution of the same but nevertheless the crime was not produced by reason of the fact that the act intended was by
its nature one of impossible accomplishment or because the means employed by such person are essentially
inadequate to produce the result desired by him, the court, having in mind the social danger and the degree of
criminality shown by the offender, shall impose upon him the penalty of arresto mayor or a fine from 200 to 500
pesos.

WE1 Turga 5
b) It is proven that the store acquired the necklace from another person who was the real owner of the
necklace?

The storeowner would be penalized under the Anti-Fencing Law33 for selling items known to
him/her are stolen goods. Rica would be guilty of theft, consistent with Art. 308 34of the Revised Penal
Code. She would also fulfill all the requisites of theft: (1) that there be a taking of personal property; (2)
that said property belongs to another; (3) that the taking be done with intent to gain; (4) that the taking be
done without the consent of the owner; and (5) that the taking be accomplished without the use of
violence or intimidation against persons or force upon things. Intent to gain is presumed from unlawful
taking,35 and second, the property belongs to another person. That the item she stole was in turn stolen
from someone else, doesn’t negate the fact that she still performed the act of unlawful taking.

4) Robbie and Rannie are both inmates of the National Penitentiary, serving the maximum penalty for
robbery which they committed some years before and for which they have been sentenced by final
judgment. One day, Robbie tried to collect money owed by Rannie. Rannie insisted that he did not owe
Robbie anything, and after a shouting episode, Rannie kicked Robbie in the stomach. Robbie fell to the
ground in pain, and Rannie left him to go to the toilet to relieve himself. As Rannie was opening the door
to the toilet and with his back turned against Robbie, Robbie stabbed him in the back with a bladed
weapon that he had concealed in his waist. Hurt, Rannie ran to the nearest "kubol" where he fell. Robbie
ran after him and, while Rannie was lying on the ground, Robbie continued to stab him, inflicting a total
of 15 stab wounds. He died on the spot. Robbie immediately surrendered to the Chief Warden. When
prosecuted for the murder of Rannie, Robbie raised provocation and voluntary surrender as mitigating
circumstances. The prosecution, on the other hand, claimed that there was treachery in the commission of
the crime.

a) Is Robbie a recidivist, or a quasi-recidivist?

A quasi-recidivist is one that has been previously convicted by final judgment of a crime, and then
proceeds to commit a subsequent crime before or during the service of his sentence. 36 A recidivist, on the

33
Anti-Fencing Law [ANTI-FENCING LAW OF 1971), Presidential Decree No. 1612. (1971)
34
Art. 308, Revised Penal Code
Theft is likewise committed by:
1. Any person who, having found lost property, shall fail to deliver the same to the local authorities or to its owner;
2. Any person who, after having maliciously damaged the property of another, shall remove or make use of the fruits
or object of the damage caused by him; and
3. Any person who shall enter an inclosed estate or a field where trespass is forbidden or which belongs to another
and without the consent of its owner, shall hunt or fish upon the same or shall gather cereals, or other forest or farm
products.
35
People v. del Rosario, G.R. No. 131036, Jun 20, 2001.
36
REVISED PENAL CODE, art.160.
Art. 160. Commission of another crime during service of penalty imposed for another offense; Penalty. — Besides
the provisions of Rule 5 of Article 62, any person who shall commit a felony after having been convicted by final
judgment, before beginning to serve such sentence, or while serving the same, shall be punished by the maximum
period of the penalty prescribed by law for the new felony. chan robles virtual law library

WE1 Turga 6
 other hand, is one whose previous conviction by final judgment and subsequent crime being tried are both
under the same title of the Revised Penal Code. 37 Robbie is not a recidivist because his crimes are not
under the same title; robbery, his previous conviction, is a crime against property, while murder, the
current charge, is a crime against persons. Instead, he is a quasi-recidivist because he killed Rannie during
the service of his sentence for robbery.

b) Can the mitigating circumstances raised by Robbie, if proven, lower the penalty for the crime committed?

The two ordinary mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and sufficient provocation will not
lower the penalty due to Robbie’s status as a quasi-recidivist – a special aggravating circumstance.
According to Art. 160 of the Revised Penal Code, a quasi-recidivist will serve the maximum period of
their new felony.38 It cannot be offset by two ordinary mitigating circumstances. A similar instance is in
the case People v. Manlapas; the defendants were guilty of murder and despite their two ordinary
mitigating circumstances of plea of guilt and voluntary surrender, being quasi-recidivists, they were
sentenced to death, the maximum penalty for murder.39

Any convict of the class referred to in this article, who is not a habitual criminal, shall be pardoned at the age of
seventy years if he shall have already served out his original sentence, or when he shall complete it after reaching
the said age, unless by reason of his conduct or other circumstances he shall not be worthy of such clemency
37
Id. art. 14(9).
Art. 14. Aggravating circumstances. — The following are aggravating circumstances:
xxx
9. That the accused is a recidivist.
A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been previously convicted by final judgment
of another crime embraced in the same title of this Code.
38
Id. art. 160.
39
People v. Manlapas, G.R. No. L-15515, Apr. 29, 1961.

WE1 Turga 7