Final Examination

Criminal Law Review

(AdZU College of Law)

INSTRUCTIONS

1. This questionnaire contains Eighteen (18) pages including this page.

Check
the number of pages and their proper sequencing. You may write notes on this
questionnaire.

2. Read each question very carefully and write your answers in your
Examination Notebook in the same order as the questions. Write your answers
only on the front page of every sheet. Note well the allocated points for each
question. In your answers, use the numbering system in the questionnaire.

3. Answer the questions legibly, clearly, and concisely. Start each answer on a
separate page. An answer to a sub-question under the same number maybe
written continuously on the same page and the immediately succeeding pages
until completed.

4. A mere “YES” or “NO” answer without any corresponding explanation or

discussion will not be given any point/credit.

QUESTIONS

I. Give two instances when one maybe criminally liable even without
criminal intent. Discuss your answer. (5pts.)

Answer:

a. Felonies committed by culpa; and

b. Offenses mala prohibita.
These two species of crime can only be consummated
because intent is inherent in the attempted and frustrated stages

Page 1 of 18
 where the offender commences the commission of a crime but
was unable to consummate the offense for cause other than his
own spontaneous desistance or independent of his will. Thus,
there is no attempted or frustrated culpa for intent is inherent in
the attempted or frustrated stage, and in culpa, there is no
intent. The act cannot be criminal unless the mind is criminal,
and a felony requires criminal intent. Hence, when intent is
absent as the mind is not criminal, no crime is committed. This
doctrine applies only to intentional felony.

II. Roberto and Melvin are employed as laborer in the poultry farm of
Rogelio. One afternoon Roberto needed money and he approached
his employer Rogelio to borrow money, but the latter refused to lend
him money instead he was admonished. In the evening Roberto
and Melvin had a drinking spree in their sleeping quarters and talked
about the ill-treatment of Rogelio towards his laborers. Roberto
and Melvin agreed to rob Rogelio of the latter’s money who was
staying just adjacent to their sleeping quarters. The plan was to
surreptitiously enter the room of Rogelio and take his money while
the latter is sleeping, and if Rogelio wakes up, they will kill him. In
the evening of the following day while Melvin was doing his chores,
Roberto secretly took the rifle of Rogelio went into the latter’s room
and shot him while asleep. When Melvin heard the gun shot, he
rushed to the room of Rogelio and found the latter lying on bed with
gunshot wound on the left temple with Roberto standing at the side
of the bed holding the rifle. To avoid discovery of their crime, the
duo pulled the dead body of Rogelio out of the house and hid it in the
bushes at the back of the latter’s house, and then escaped as there
were people already coming to the place of the incident after hearing
the gunshot. A month after the incident Roberto and Melvin were
arrested and charged with Murder. The trial court convicted the
duo of the crime charged with qualifying circumstance of Treachery.

a. Is there a conspiracy between Roberto and Melvin to commit the

crime charged?

b. What is the liability of Melvin?

Page 2 of 18
 c. Can a conspirator be held criminally liable differently from his co-
conspirator? (10 pts.)

Answer:

a. Yes. There is conspiracy between Roberto and Melvin to kill

Rogelio. Their acts conclusively show a shared community
of purpose to kill Rogelio. It was held that where the acts
of the accused collectively and individually demonstrate the
existence of a common design toward the accomplishment of
the same unlawful purpose, conspiracy is evident, and all the
perpetrators will be liable as principals.

b. Melvin maybe held liable for Homicide only. The qualifying

circumstance of treachery is absent in the case of Melvin.
He can be held liable only for homicide, for which Article 249
of the Revised Penal Code imposes the penalty of Reclusion
temporal. While there is conspiracy in the killing of Rogelio,
the manner of killing was not agreed upon by Roberto and
Melvin, thus the qualifying circumstance of Treachery is not
present on the part of Melvin.

c. Yes. A conspirator may be liable differently if there is

present a circumstance personal to his, e.g., in case where
one was held liable for murder whereas his co-conspirator
was convicted for homicide because the former killed the
victim with treachery unknown to the latter. (People v.
Cabillan).

III. X challenged his neighbor B whom he hated so much for a fight to

which B accepted. X was able to kill B with heavy blows on the
different parts of B’s body and head. After the killing, X cut his nose,
ears, arms and legs. Thereafter X cut open B’s stomach and chest
and took out all the internal organs before burying them. X was
thereafter arrested and charged.

Page 3 of 18
 a. What crime did X commit?

b. Supposed the removal of cutting of the nose, ears, arms and legs
was done while the latter is still alive, is your answer the same as
in (a)?

Discuss your answers briefly. (5 pts.)

Answers:

a. X committed the crime of murder, qualified by scoffing of the

corpse of B. When two persons (in this case X and B) fight, the
resulting killing of one of them is Homicide. But if thereafter
the offender does any act which insults or outrages the person
of the victim, such as decapitating the corpse, the crime is
murder by scoffing the corpse.

b. No. The crime committed is still murder but the qualifying

circumstance that qualifies the killing to murder is not scoffing
the of the corpse but with cruelty, by deliberately and
inhumanely augmenting the suffering of the victim. The
intervening time between the initial attack and subsequent acts
must be sufficiently established to enable determination as to
whether they were one continuous series of acts or were so
deliberately spaced as to constitute either cruelty or outrage to
the corpse. (People v. Balisteros).

IV. C was charged and found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of

frustrated homicide by the Regional Trial Court. He was sentenced
to suffer imprisonment from two (2) years and four(4) months of
prison correctional, as minimum, to six (6) years and one day of
prison mayor, as maximum.

a. Is C eligible for probation? Why?

Page 4 of 18
b. Suppose C appealed his conviction, and the appellate court
imposed the penalty within the range of prison correccional, will
your answer be the same as in (a)?

c. If the penalty imposed by the trial court was an indeterminate

penalty of four (4) months of arresto menor as minimum, to two
(2) years and four (4) months of arresto mayor, as maximum, and
C appealed his conviction but the appellate court affirmed the
penalty imposed, can C avail the privilege of probation? Explain.
(10 pts.)

Answer:

a. No. C is not eligible for probation because the maximum

penalty imposed upon him is more than 6 years of imprisonment.
Section 9(a) of Presidential Decree No. 968, as amended,
provides that the benefits of probation shall not be extended to
those sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of
more than six (6) years.

b. No. C can avail the benefits of probation. In the case of

Colinares v. People, the Supreme Court held that the RTC
convicted Colinares of the wrong crime that carried a penalty in
excess of 6 years. He cannot be expected to feel penitent over
a crime which he did not commit. He only committed attempted
homicide with a maximum penalty of 2 years and four months.
The Supreme Court held that Colinares was eligible for probation
even if he appealed his conviction because he was convicted of a
wrong crime and the penalty for the crime he committed would
make him eligible for probation. Section 4 of the Probation
Law provides, among others, that when a judgement of
conviction imposing a non-probationable penalty is appealed or
reviewed, and such judgement is modified through the
imposition of probationable penalty, the defendant shall ne
allowed to apply for probation based on the modified decision
before such decision becomes final.

Page 5 of 18
 c. No. Section 4 of the Probation Law, as amended, prohibits the
grant of probation to defendant who perfected an appeal from
the judgement of conviction. An appeal effectively bars the
accused from applying for probation even if the appeal is taken
solely to reduce the penalty to qualify for probation. Appeal
presu[poses that the convict disagrees with the finding of his
guilt whereas probation admits his guilt and implies remorse.
Thus, appeal and probation are mutually exclusive remedies
because they oppose one another. These remedies are
alternative, that is, one cannot change his mind and choose the
other. The first choice forecloses availment of the alternative
remedy.

V. SS was drinking beer at the store. He was later joined by A, B and C,

members of the CAFGU, at the table. (Note: the CAFGU was created
pursuant to Executive order No. 264 composed of civilian volunteers,
for the purpose of complementing the operations of the regular force
formations in the locality. As such, they were provided with
weapons, and given the authority to detain or order detention of
individuals). After few minutes, SS was seen being forcibly dragged
by A, B, and C from the store and took him to the nearby military
detachment headquarters. Thereafter, witnesses heard a single
gunshot followed by rapid firing coming from the direction of the
detachment headquarters. That was the last time SS was seen, and
despite diligent efforts of SS’s mother and relatives, he has not been
found.

What crime, if any, can be charged against A, B and C? Explain. (5

pts.)

Answer:

A, B, and C can be charged with Arbitrary Detention, they, being

considered as public officers or employees with authority to arrest and

Page 6 of 18
 detain persons. It is essential however, that there is actual
confinement or restriction of the person of the offended party. There
must be proof of both, intent to deprive the victim of his liberty and
actual confinement or restriction.

A, B, and C cannot be charged with or convicted of the crime of

kidnapping and serious illegal detention, since the first element of the
crime is that the offender must be private individual. At the time A,
B, and C allegedly committed the crime, they were members of the
CAFGU, who are considered as public officers. (People v. Flores, G.R,
No. 116488).

VI. H was lawfully arrested without warrant for attempted homicide by

D, a police officer. H was arrested in the afternoon of a Thursday
but when he was taken to the Prosecutor’s office, the Hall of justice
was locked-down until Monday, as the local IATF ordered the
disinfection of the entire building (Hall of Justice) and its premises to
the positive result of the test of one of the court’s employees for
COVID-19. Comes Monday, it was declared a non-working holiday,
thus, the case was filed by the police to the Prosecutor’s Office in the
morning of Tuesday, or more than 96 hours after H’s arrests. H filed
a complaint against the police for Arbitrary Detention claiming that,
his continued detention for more than 96 hours without being
charged in court, was a violation of Article 124 of the Revised Penal
Code.

Is the complaint of H valid? Explain. (5 pts.)

Answer:

No. The 12-18-36 hours that requires the delivery of persons lawfully
arrested to judicial authority under Article 124 of the Revised Penal
Code do not run when the courts are not open to receive the complaint
or information. During no-office days, it is not an easy matter for a
prosecutor to look for his clerk and stenographer, draft the information
and search for judge to have him act thereon, and get the clerk of court
to open the courthouse, docket the case and have the order of

Page 7 of 18
 commitment prepared. And then, where to locate and the
uncertainty of locating those officers and employees could very well
compound the prosecutor’s difficulties. Accused was brought to court
on the very first office day following his arrest. (Soria v. Desierto, citing
Medina v. Orozco, Jr.).

VII. R is a jail guard charged with the duty of keeping under his custody
Z, a detention prisoner and being tried for violation of the Dangerous
Drugs Act. After the hearing, R allowed Z to have lunch with her
husband. While eating, Z’s husband asked R if he could accompany
his wife to the comfort room as she was not feeling well and felt like
defecating. R accompanied Z and a lady companion to the ladies’
comfort room and stood guard along the alley facing the door,
without first ascertaining for himself whether the CR is safe and
without any egress by which the said detention prisoner could
escape. Not long after, the lady companion of Z came out and told
R that she was going to buy sanitary napkins for Z. After several
minutes elapsed without the lady companion of Z coming back, R
entered the CR and found Z no longer inside. R noticed that the
window of said CR was not provided with window grills. R formally
reported the matter to his superior at the City Jail.

a. What crime did R Commit? Explain.

b. What, if any, is the liability of Z? Explain.
c. If Z is a sentenced prisoner, will your answer be the same as
in (b)? Explain your answer. (10 pts.)

Answers:

a. R committed the crime of Infidelity in the Custody of Prisoner

(Evasion through Negligence) under article 224 of the Revised Penal
Code. There is no question that R is a public officer. Neither is
there any dispute as to the fact that he was charged with the
custody of a prisoner who was being tried for a violation of the
Dangerous Drugs Law. The elements of the crime under Article 224
of the Revised Penal Code are: (1) that the offender is a public
officer; (2) that he is charged with the conveyance or custody of a

Page 8 of 18
 prisoner either detention prisoner or sentenced prisoner; and (3)
that such prisoner escapes through his negligence. It is evident
that R acted negligently and beyond the scope of his authority when
he permitted his charge to create the situation which led to her
escape. As a jail officer who was charged with the duty to return
the prisoner directly to jail, the deviation from his duty was clearly
a violation of the regulations. (Rodillas v. Sandignabayan).

b. Z has no criminal liability. If the fugitive is only a detention prisoner

she/he does not incur criminal liability. There is no penal law that
punishes a detention prisoner who escaped from detention.

c. No. If Z is serving sentence by reason of final judgement, she is liable

for evasion of service of sentence under Article 157 of the Revised
Penal Code.

VIII. For unknown reason, Cardo became unruly and causing trouble in the
neighborhood. He challenged for a duel every person he meets on
the street. The neighbors reported the matter to the barangay
chairman who, along with his three (3) barangay tanods responded
to the reports and tried to pacify Cardo. But the latter became more
aggressive, got a 6-inch knife and attacked the barangay chairman.
Unarmed, the 3 tanods ran away but the 60-year old barangay
chairman was left behind as he was unable to run. Thus, Cardo
catched with him and stabbed him at the back several times causing
the barangay chairman to fall to the ground. While on the ground,
Cardo continued to stab the chairman until the latter stopped
moving. The barangay chairman died later while undergoing
treatment in the hospital.

What crime did Cardo commit? Explain. (5 pts.)

Answer:
Cardo committed the crime of the Complex Crime of Murder with
Assault upon a person in authority. The barangay captain was in the
act of trying to pacify Cardo who was making trouble in the
neighborhood when he was stabbed to death. He was therefore killed

Page 9 of 18
 while in the performance of his duties. In the case of People v. Hecto,
the Supreme Court held that “As the barangay captain, it was his duty
to enforce the laws and ordinances within the barangay. If in the
enforcement thereof, he incurs the enmity of his people who thereafter
treacherously slew him, the crime committed is murder with assault
upon a person in authority. (People v. Dollantes).

IX. X was sentenced by final judgement with the penalty of Destierro for
the crime punishable under Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended (Death or Physical Injuries under Exceptional
Circumstances). X’s sentence prohibits him from entering the
barangay, where the incident took place, for a period of 2 years, 4
months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months. However, just 3 months
after his conviction, X went and entered the barangay to visit his
property.

What crime, if any, did X commit? Explain your answer. (5 pts.)

Answer:

X committed the crime of Evasion of Service of Sentence defined and

punished under Article 157 of the Revised Penal Code. Although
destierro does not constitute imprisonment, it is a deprivation of
liberty, though partial, in the sense that X by his sentence of destierro
was deprived of the liberty to enter the district. One who is sentenced
to destierro by virtue of final judgement, and prohibited from entering
the district, enters said place within the period of his sentence, is guilty
of evasion of service of sentence under Article 157 of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended. (People v. Abilong).

X. Mario is lawfully married to Ana whom he surprised in the act of

sexual congress with her lover in their rented apartment. A then
took his shotgun and shot his wife’s paramour killing the latter
instantly. Pellets from the exploding cartridge of the shotgun
pierced through the walls of the apartment and hit a passerby
injuring the latter.

Page 10 of 18
 What is the criminal liability, if any, of Mario for the killing of his
wife’s paramour, as well as, for the injury of the passerby? Discuss
briefly. (5 Pts.)

Answer:

Mario maybe held liable for the killing of his wife’s paramour under
Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended (Death or Physical
Injuries Inflicted Under Exceptional Circumstances), which provides
that “That any legally married person who, having surprised his spouse
in the act of sexual intercourse with another person, shall kill any of
them or both of them in the act immediately thereafter, or shall inflict
upon them any serious physical injury, shall suffer the penalty of
destierro”.

As to the injuries sustained by the passerby by the stray bullet/pellets

when Mario shot the paramour of his wife, he has no criminal liability.
When other person suffered physical injuries as he was caught in the
crossfire, the offended spouse is not liable for a complex crime of
frustrated murder or homicide. Mario did not have the intent to kill
the passerby when he shot the paramour of his wife. He was not
committing murder or homicide when he shot to death the paramour
of his wife. There was no aberatio ictus because he was acting
lawfully. Inflicting death under exceptional circumstances is not
unlawful per se. The penalty of destierro under Article 247 of the
Revised Penal Code is mere banishment and is intended more for the
protection of the accused than punishment. (People v. Coricor).

XI. Pablo, a witness in a criminal case for homicide filed against Romy,
falsely testified under oath in a criminal proceeding against the latter
during trial of the case in court. Romy knew his testimony to be
false at the time he gave his testimony.

a. If Romy decides to charge Pablo criminally for the said testimony

given against him, when should he file the case and for what
crime?

Page 11 of 18
 b. What if the said testimony of Pablo was favorable to Romy, will
your answer be the same as in (a)?

Explain your answers. (10 Pts.)

Answers:

a. Romy must wait for the finality of judgement in the case where
the false testimony was given Pablo. This is so because the
penalty for the violation of Article 180 of the Revised Penal Code,
as amended, depends upon the penalty imposed by the court in
the case of the defendant against whom false testimony was
given. Romy must be sentenced to at least a correctional
penalty or a fine, or must be acquitted. It need not be the direct
The crime to be charged against Pablo should be False Testimony
Against the Defendant, defined and penalized under Article 180
of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.

b. No. False Testimony Favorable to the Defendant defined and

punished under Article 181 of the Revised Penal Code need not
directly influence the decision of the acquittal and it need not
benefit the defendant. Conviction or acquittal of the defendant
in the principal case (where the false testimony is given) is not
necessary. It is sufficient that the defendant is prosecuted for
a felony punishable by afflictive or by other penalty. False
testimony favorable to the defendant is punished not because of
the effect it actually produces but because of its tendency to
favor or to prejudice the defendant. Criminal action maybe
instituted after the false testimony is given and, unlike in false
testimony against a defendant, prescriptive period commences
right after the witness testified because the basis of the penalty
on the false witness is the felony charged to the accused.
The crime to be charged against Pablo should be False Testimony
Favorable to the Defendant, defined and punished under Article
181 of the RPC, as amended.

XII. Distinguish Direct Bribery from Indirect Bribery. (5 pts.)

Page 12 of 18
 Answer:

The distinctions between Direct Bribery and Indirect Bribery are:

a. In both crimes, the public officer receives a gift;

b. In Direct Bribery, the is an agreement between the public officer and

the giver of the gift or present; While, in Indirect Bribery, usually, no
such agreement exists;

c. In Direct Bribery, the offender agrees to perform or actually

performs an act or refrains from doing something, because of the
gift or promise; while in Indirect Bribery, it is not necessary that the
officer should do any particular act or even promise to do an act, as
it is enough that he accepts gifts offered to him by reason of his
office.

XIII. P, a municipal mayor of Sta. Cruz, obtained a cash advance in the sum
of 500,000.00 pesos from the Municipality, purportedly for the
purpose of defraying the projected expenses of a planned travel to
Singapore, to study and research said city’s sustainable
environmental project. The said official travel of P to Singapore did
not push through for undisclosed reasons. P’s cash advance has
remained unliquidated prompting P to refund the same through
salary deduction, after the COA auditor reported the unliquidated
funds of the Municipality. Until the end of the term of P, his
unliquidated cash advance was not fully paid with the remaining
balance of 250,000.00 pesos. P was subsequently charged by the
office of the Ombudsman before the Sandiganbayan for
Malversation of Public Funds. In the meantime, P was able to fully
refund to the Municipality his unliquidated balance of the cash
advance by causing the same to be deducted from his terminal pay.
Nonetheless, P was prosecuted and convicted by the Sandiganbayan
upon, among others, the ratiocination that payment not being a
cause for extinction of criminal liability, the full restitution of the
amount alleged to have been malversed does not exculpate P

Page 13 of 18
therefrom; that at most, restitution of the malversed amount is a
mitigating circumstance that entitles P to a reduction of the
imposable penalty. P appealed his conviction.

a. How is Malversation of Public Funds Committed?

b. Is P liable for Malversation of public Funds?

Explain. (5 pts.)

Answer:

a. No. Malversation may be committed by appropriating public

funds or property; by taking or misappropriating the same; by
consenting, or through abandonment or negligence, by
permitting any other person to take such public funds or
property; or by being otherwise guilty of the misappropriation
or malversation of such funds or property. For a prosecution
of the crime to prosper, concurrence of the following elements
must be satisfactorily proved: (1) the offender is a public officer;
(2) he has custody or control of the funds or property by reason
of the duties of his office; (3) the funds or property are public
funds or property for which he is accountable; and most
importantly, (4) he has appropriated, taken, misappropriated or
consented, or through abandonment or negligence, permitted
another person to take them.

b. No. P had no custody or control of the funds by reason of the

duties of his office. To have custody or control of the funds or
property by reason of his office, a public officer must be a
cashier, treasurer, collector, property officer or any other officer
or employee who is tasked with the taking of money or property
from the public which they are duty bound to keep temporarily
until such money or property are properly deposited in official
depositary banks or similar entities; or until they shall have
endorsed such money or property to other accountable officers
or concerned offices. P is not such public officer, even

Page 14 of 18
 temporarily, in addition to his main duties as mayor. He was
not accountable for any public funds or property simply because
it never became his duty to collect money or property from the
public. Therefore, P could not have appropriated, taken,
misappropriated or consented, or, through abandonment or
negligence, permitted another person to take them. Even
granting that it was malversation which P alleged to committed,
it has been ruled that good faith is a valid defense in a
prosecution for malversation of public funds as it would negate
criminal intent on the part of the accused. P’s full liquidation
of his cash advance by means of an arrangement allowed by the
COA ultimately translated into the good faith he interposed as a
defense. (Panganiban v. People).

XIV. Upset at the ill-treatment of M towards P, the latter took a hand gun,
though without intention to hurt or kill, pointed it at M and squeezed
the trigger. The gun fired and the bullet ricocheted of the nearby
wall and hit the right leg of M. As a result, M sustained injuries on
his right leg.

What crime or crimes can P be prosecuted of? Explain. (5 pts.)

Answer:

P committed a complex crime of Discharge of Firearm with Serious or

Less Serious Physical Injuries, as the case maybe. The purpose of P
was only to intimidate or frighten M and without intent to kill. If the
discharge of the firearm is coupled with intent to kill, the crime is
frustrated or attempted homicide or murder, as the case maybe. It
was held, that if in the discharge of firearm, the offended party is hit
and wounded, there is a complex crime of discharge of firearm with
serious or less serious physical injuries. (People v. Arquiza). If only
slight physical injuries were inflicted, there is no complex crime, but
separate crimes of discharge of firearm and slight physical injuries
since such physical injuries constitute a light felony (REYES).

Page 15 of 18
XV. One evening, Joe, a 21-year old bachelor, entered the house of Virgie,
a married woman, who was asleep alone at that time in the house.
Finding Virgie asleep in her room, Joe raised her dress and placed
himself on top of her. Upon waking up, Virgie immediately cried
for help and it was then that the accused poked her with a knife and
threatened to stab her if she would not keep quiet. However, Virgie
continued to shout and offer resistance, prompting her neighbor to
come to her rescue, which compelled Joe to hastily leave the house
and ran away. Joe was subsequently charged with, and convicted
of, the crime of attempted rape. Joe contended that he is only liable
for Unjust Vexation.

Is the contention of Joe tenable? Explain. (5 pts.)

Answer:

The contention of Joe is untenable. In order that an attempted crime

may exist, it is sufficient that the offender commences the commission
thereof directly by overt acts, without the necessity of their arriving at
as more or less advanced stage, provided the commencement of such
execution logically leads to the commission of a definite crime, which
is not attained by reason of some cause or accident other than the
offender’s own spontaneous desistance. Had Joe abandoned his
designed after performing the acts committed by him, according to the
evidence, the crime committed would be unjust vexation. But Joe
persisted in his purpose, which could not have been to vex Virgie
because his objective was already attained, but to ravish her through
force and intimidation, in as much as his acts under the circumstances
could not lead to any other end. Joe’s attempt was defeated by the
timely arrival of a neighbor who came to the rescue of Virgie upon
hearing her cries for help. The acts of Joe transcend the limits of
unjust vexation and arrived, in the continued process of the action, at
the field of attempted rape, stopping therein by reason of causes
independent of his will. (People v. Tayaba).

XVI. A group of robbers, A, B, and C surreptitiously entered the office of

F, while the latter was preparing the money for the payment of

Page 16 of 18
wages of his laborers, and at gunpoint, forced F to open the bolt and
took 200,000.00 pesos. While the robbery was in progress, one of
the laborers alerted the firm’s security guards stationed nearby upon
noticing the suspicious looking persons entered the office of F. The
guards of the firm immediately responded to the report and rushed
to the office of F. While said guards were about 20 meters away,
the robbers were surprised on their way out by the approaching
security guards, opened fire at the latter and rushed back into the
office. An exchange of gunfire then ensued between the firm’s
security guards and the robbers until the latter were able to exit the
office through the back door and scampered to different directions,
leaving behind the cash forcibly taken from the bolt of F. When
the smoke was cleared, three (3) bystanders were killed by stray
bullets. The robbers were subsequently arrested by the pursuing
police operatives. Investigation disclosed that the stray bullets that
killed the three (3) innocent bystanders came from the robbers.

If you are the prosecutor assigned on the case filed by the police
before the prosecutor’s, what crime or crimes are you going to file
against the robbers? Explain. (5 pts)

Answer:

I will file a case of Robbery with Homicide under Article 294 of the
Revised Penal Code, a special complex crime. This special complex
crime does not limit the homicide to one victim as to make the killings
in excess of that number punishable as a separate offense. All the
homicides are merged in the composite, integrated whole that is
robbery with homicide so long as all the killings were perpetrated by
reason or on occasion of the robbery. (People v. Fabula).

There is robbery with homicide even if the person killed was a

bystander and not the person robbed or even if he/she was one of the
offenders. The law does not require that the victim of the robbery be

Page 17 of 18
also the victim of homicide. (People v. Barut). It is immaterial that two
or more persons are killed, the felony would still be robbery with
homicide. (People v. De Leon).

Page 18 of 18