Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 8

I.

(a)

Juans application for probation before may be granted

The Probation Law disqualifies those who have already been convicted for an offense
punishable by imprisonment of more than 6 months.

Juan, along with John, and Johnny, has been convicted previously of Attempted Theft and
sentenced to imprisonment of 6 months. Since the law provides that the prison term be more
than 6 months to fall under the disqualification, Juan is not disqualified from applying for
Probation.

Thus, Juans application for Probation may be validly granted.

(b)

No. Juans application for probation may not be granted.

The Probation Law can be validly applied for before judgment attains finality. However, an
appeal of the judgment effectively disqualifies the applicant.

Here, regardless of the downgrade of the conviction to a lower sentence, the mere fact that
the judgment was appealed disqualifies Juan from the benefits of the Probation Law.

Thus, Juans application may not be granted.

II.

The RTC should grant the motion for execution.

A conviction is immediately executory even if the judgment was appealed from. The
prescriptive period for prosecution of crimes does not apply here because the crime has
already been prosecuted.

Petitos opposition to the motion cannot be sustained because the judgment, being
immediately executor needs no positive act from the City Prosecutor to be enforced. That
being said, Petito has no motion to oppose.

Thus, the RTC should already grant the motion for execution even without the initiation of
the City Prosecutor.

III.
Yes, Patty is both criminally and civilly liable.

The Revised Penal Code and the Family Code provides that criminal and civil suits cannot be
commenced among members of the same family for the crimes of theft, swindling and
trespass to property. The rule however, applies only to members of the immediate family.

Here, Juana is the mother-in-law of the perpetrator, Patty. She is considered a stranger to
Patty and vice-versa because they are related only due to marriage and not by blood. The law
does not include relatives by affinity in the said rule.

Thus, Patty is criminally and civilly liable.

IV.

No. The conviction of Pedro is not correct.

The elements of the crime of Estafa through Abuse of Confidence are the following: a) there
should be fraud or deceit; b) there should be intent to gain; and c) conversion or application
of the funds to other use. Conversion by itself is inherent in the crime of Estafa and as such
cannot be considered to qualify the crime of Estafa.

Here, Pedro as messenger of an entity engaged in the handling of remittances from abroad
was reposed with trust and confidence by the employer. As messenger of a cash remittance
delivery company, Pedros job is imbued with confidence that the money entrusted to him
will be delivered to the clients of REMIT. Pedros act of misappropriating the funds entrusted
to him constitutes Estafa through Abuse of Confidence.

Thus, Pedros conviction for Estafa for conversion is incorrect.

V.

Pandoy is a principal in the crime of Theft while Abet is the accessory to the crime of Theft
and is also liable for the crime of Fencing.

The crime of Theft is committed by a person with intent to gain, unlawfully takes personal
property not belonging to him without the use of force and violence. The taking may be
constructive. The crime of Fencing is committed by a person who is in possession of stolen
property regardless whether he knew of its nature as stolen or not..

In this case, Pandoys account though it was erroneously credited with P999,000.00. Pandoy
had the duty to return the money wrongfully credited to his account but rather, he
appropriated the same for himself. Abet was aware of the act and hid the proceeds in his
account. Because the same was stolen property, Abet is also liable as a fence.
Thus, Pandoy is a principal in the crime of Theft while Abet is the accessory to the crime of
Theft and is also liable for the crime of Fencing.

VI

Peter and John should be liable for an impossible crime.

An Impossible Crime is committed when there is a physical and legal impossibility for the
accomplishment of the crime or when the means used to commit the crime are ineffectual or
inadequate. However, the law punishes those who commit these crimes because of the
offenders propensity to commit unlawful acts.

Here, Peter and John cannot be said to have committed their intended crime of abduction
because there was a physical impossibility of doing so because their supposed victim was
already dead.

Thus, Peter and John are liable for an impossible crime.

VII

No, Peter cannot successfully interpose the absolutory cause of Death Inflicted under
Exceptional Circumstances.

A death inflicted under exceptional circumstances can only be successfully interposed when
the act of killing is immediately preceded by the sexual act between the spouse of the
offender and the paramour. It is important that such sexual act be met with surprise by the
victim-spouse and the paramour and there is no time for the offender to think about his act.

Here, an appreciable amount of time has already lapsed before Peter killed Petra. Peter was
already able to think coolly about his actions.

Thus, Peter cannot successfully interpose the absolutory cause of Death Inflicted under
Exceptional Circumstances.

VIII

Yes, Zet may be criminally liable for the killing of Paolo.

A person is also criminally liable when he commits an act but he did not intend to commit so
grave a wrong or prater intentionem. The act the perpetrator initially did is not proportionate
to the result thereof. It is also considered a mitigating circumstance.
Here, Zet only intended to get the mobile phone of Paolo with the use of a toy gun. However,
the sequence of events following Zets initial act left Paolo dead although not by his hand,
but by his own doing of holding Paolo at gunpoint. Thus, had Zet not done the act, Paolo
would not have been mauled to death mistakenly.

Thus, Zet is criminally liable for the killing of Paolo.

IX

Naty cannot be convicted of such crime.

Estafa under Article 315(2)(d) is committed by deceitfully issuing a check knowing it to be


unfunded and upon demand, when it remains unfunded, the same causes damage to the payee
of the check. The Crime of Estafa will not prosper if the checks that had been issued were for
the payment of a pre-existing debt.

Here, the issued checks were issues for the payment of a pre-existing debt. As such the crime
of Estafa against Naty will not prosper.

My opinion would be to file a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
because the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to a lack or excess of
jurisdiction.

Our criminal laws admit of the characteristic of territoriality which means that the application
of our penal laws is limited to the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines save for the
following exceptions: a) Crimes committed inside a Philippine ship or airship; b)
Counterfeiting Philippine currency; c) Introduction of counterfeit currency into the
Philippines; d) Crimes committed by Public Officers abroad while engaged in their official
function; e) Those who commit crimes against National Security and the Law of Nations.

The crime of adultery committed by Ivana and Boris may not be prosecuted here because it
does not fall under any of the exceptions of the territorial application of our penal laws. As
such, the trial court erred in the application of the law in this case.

Thus, I opine that a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court should be
filed.

XI

The crime of murder was committed.


The crime of murder is committed when the act of killing is qualified by circumstances that
would amount to the crime of murder such as in this case, treachery and abuse of superior
strength.

As to their individual liabilities, Manuel is liable as a principal by direct cooperation because


he pulled the trigger on Rod which eventually caused the latters death. Frank is liable as an
accomplice for he supplied the means for the crime to be consummated. Butch is liable as an
accomplice because he provided moral support to the perpetrator instead of stopping the
crime. Lastly, Jose is liable as an accessory because he concealed and aided his brother
Manuel in disposing of the gun used in the crime. Jose does not fall under any of the
exceptions exempting the brother of the perpetrator from criminal liability.

Thus, the crime of murder was committed.

XII

(a)

No, the motion to suspend proceedings should not be granted.

A prejudicial question exists when the result of the criminal proceeding is highly dependent
or is determined by the result in the civil proceeding. It is also important to note that the
existence of a prejudicial question applies only when there is a criminal proceeding already
initiated before the civil proceeding because the determination of the prejudicial question
would suspend the criminal proceeding.

Here, there was already a pending action for the declaration of nullity of marriage before the
case for bigamy was filed. The question of the validity of the marriage between Donald and
Olga is not a prejudicial question that would suspend the criminal case.

Thus, the motion to suspend proceedings should not be granted.

(b)

Yes, Donald may still be convicted of bigamy in the criminal case.

In a nullity case, the parties to the case must file a file for a declaration of nullity of marriage
for the purpose of remarriage with a court before either party can remarry. Lack of this
requirement would affect the validity of the subsequent marriage.

Here, the second marriage was contracted before the granting of the nullity of marriage.
Naturally, there was no issuance of a declaration of nullity of marriage which is required
before Donald can remarry.

Thus, Donald may still be convicted of bigamy in the criminal case.


XIII

The complaint against Igor would not prosper.

The elements of the crime of Estafa through Abuse of Confidence are the following: a) there
should be fraud or deceit; b) there should be intent to gain; and c) conversion or application
of the funds to other use. Misappropriation is inherent in the crime of Estafa.

Here, Igor committed Estafa through Abuse of Confidence because he is a principal


stockholder of the bank and as such he is imbued with trust and confidence with keeping the
cash flow of the bank intact. Instead, Igor abused the confidence of the bank and the clients.

Thus, the complaint against Igor for Estafa for misappropriation will not prosper.

XIV

No, Ganda is not liable for perjury.

The crime of perjury can be committed in two ways: first, by the deliberate assertion of a
falsehood in an affidavit required to be taken under oath before a person who can administer
oaths; and second, in a proceeding before a tribunal exercising judicial function.

The verified answer of Ganda is only a denial of the allegations made against her and there is
no deliberate assertion of a falsehood stated in an affidavit. Ganda merely denied the
allegation of her non-payment of the debt which is only a reply.

Thus, Ganda is not liable for perjury.

XV

No, the prosecution cannot prove conspiracy of the accused through circumstantial evidence.

Conspiracy is committed when 2 or more perpetrators agree to commit an unlawful act under
common design unity in the commission of the act. The unlawful act to be committed must
be dolo in character and not culpa because there can be no conspiracy in culpable felonies.

Here, there can be no conspiracy in a case for reckless imprudence resulting to homicide
because in a conspiracy, the perpetrators must have decided to commit the unlawful act.
Here, it was an accident and the intent to kill was not present when Dr. J and Dr. No operated
on Johnny.

Thus, there can be no conspiracy in this case.


XVI

The crime committed was robbery with violence against persons.

The crime of Robbery with violence against persons as committed when in the course of
robbing the victims, the perpetrators use or threaten to use violence and intimidation.

In this case, the accused used deceit in gaining access to the house and guns in weakening the
defense of the victims. They were able to consummate the act of robbing the victims by such
implements.

Thus, they should be charged with the crime of robbery with violence against persons.

XVII

A composite crime is a crime where the commission of a series of crimes is committed in


order to consummate the ultimate goal. While a complex crime is a crime where two or more
grave or less grave felonies are committed and the commission of one of which is necessary
to commit the other.

XVIII

(a)

The crime committed by Rodrigo is attempted homicide.


A crime is in its attempted stage when the overt acts have been made but is prevented from
completing all the acts necessary to the commission of the offense by some cause or accident
other than the perpetrators spontaneous desistance.

Here, there was intent to kill but such intent was not put into action because the overt acts
needed to complete the act of killing were not done because of the jamming of the trigger.
This was outside the control of Rodrigo and not because he desisted from committing the
crime.

Thus, Rodrigo committed attempted homicide.

(b)

Yes, Rodrigo would still be criminally liable.


An Impossible Crime is committed when there is a physical and legal impossibility for the
accomplishment of the crime or when the means used to commit the crime are ineffectual or
inadequate. The law punishes those who commit these crimes because of the offenders
propensity to commit unlawful acts.

Here, the means used to commit the crime was ineffectual or inadequate due to the lack of a
bullet to fully commit the crime of homicide against Reyno.

Thus, Rodrigo is liable for an impossible crime.