Monica Frances Salvador

Criminal 1

1. Yes, Patola is liable for the death of Duthirty. In the case of US V Sornito, It was
established that a person is criminally liable when the acts he committed in violation law
and for all the natural and logical consequence resulting therefrom which is called the
proximate cause in the case of Bataclan V. Medina. In the present case, the death of
Duthirty is due to tetanus which would not be present without the act committed by
Patola. Therefore, Patola is criminally liable for the death of Duthirty as the stabbing of
banana cue stick is the proximate cause of the tetanus.

2. A. Yes. Isiah is correct. According to the Revised Penal Code, attempted felonies was
prevented due to a cause of accident other than the offender’s own spontaneous
desistance and in impossible crime, it was prevented due to it was inherently impossible
for accomplishment or the means employed by offender is inadequate or ineffectual. In
the present case, it was an impossible crime as Mike was not in the room at the time Isiah
peppered his bedroom with bullets.

B. Yes. The crime committed by Isiah would be Arson even though was not inside his
bedroom that time.

3. It would be crime of either violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 or Estafa. The Batas
Pambansa also known as “Bouncing Checks Law” it penalizes any person who makes or
draws and issues any checks to apply on account or for value, even though at the time of
the issuance he does not have any sufficient funds for such check issued by him. likewise
person can be liable for Estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code if he issues a
check for payment of an obligation using false pretense or fraudulent act. Therefore ,the
person may pursue either a criminal case for violation of B.P. 22 and/or Estafa subject on
the events surrounding your issuance of postdated checks

4. According to the Revised Penal Code, the crime of Act of Lasciviousness the crime is
against chastity. However, in the crime of rape in pursuant to the Republica Act No. 8353
also known as Anti-Rape law of 1997 it was a crime against persons.
5. Yes, Oanis commited Homicide . In the case of People V. Oanis, the second requisite of
Article 11 paragraph 5 is not establish because of the impatience and the offenders
exceeded in the fulfillment of their duty when they killed a sleeping person whom they
believed to be the criminal without checking the identity of the person. In the present
case, it was similar as they could have been another way on the preventing the person to
escape additionally they are in the police station which there had been could numerous
police officer that could have hold and prevent him from escaping. Lastly, the police
officer should first have alarmed shot in preventing him to escape.
6. A. They are not exempted on the ground of Article 11 paragraph 5, In the case of Oanis,
where the first requisite is present but the second requisite of Article 11 paragraph 5 is
not establish because of the impatience and the offenders exceeded in the fulfillment of
their duty when they killed a sleeping person whom they believed to be the criminal
without checking the identity of the person. In the present case, The Police officer did
the same where they opened fire to Jojo and Bibi when they haven’t checked their
identity and it was not necessary consequence of their lawful exercise of such right.
- B. It was not exempted due to mistake of fact, In the case of People V. Ah chong, he was
acquitted by the view of all the circumstances, he acted in good faith, without malice, or
criminal intent, also cannot be said to have been guilty of negligence or recklessness or
even carelessness in falling into his mistake as to the facts, or in the means adopted by
him to defend himself from the imminent danger. Therefore, the police officers could
take other ways in looking for the escaped rebels and should not opened fire to people
who they think could be. They should be more careful to in shooting people.
7. A. Under the Revised Penal Code, the accused would be acquitted if the repeal law would
be totally obliterates the crime charged to him.
B. Felonies – are acts and omission punishable by Revised Penal Code However, the
offenses are acts punishable by Special laws.
8. A. Yes. Under Revised Penal Code, Frustrated arson had been committed already when
the person already sets fire to the place. In the present case, Mr. A already lit the match
for burning after he poured the gasoline on its wall and it was only prevented by Mr. C
which is also the last element frustrated felonies where evil intent is prevent by the causes
independent to the will of the perpetrator.
9. A. In the case of Fernan, Jr. vs. People, Under the wheel conspiracy, there is a single
person or group distributing individually with two or more persons or their part or task.
However, In chain conspiracy, it regularly involves distribution of the contraband, in
which there is sequential cooperation likewise as to the legitimate business operation,
between manufacturer and wholesaler, then wholesaler and retailer, and then retailer and
consumer.
B. Implied conspiracy is when two or more person aimed their acts towards the
accomplishment of the same unlawful object and In the case of People V. Hernandez, It
is enough that in the of the commission of the crime the offenders acted in concert and
each of them is doing part to fulfill such crime.