Description
[2016] Lina worked as a housemaid and yaya of the one-week old son of the spouses John and Joana. When Lina learned that her 70year old mother was seriously ill, she asked John for a cash advance of P20,000.00, but the latter refused. In anger, Lina gagged the mouth of the child with stockings, placed him in a box, sealed it with masking tape, and placed the box in the attic. Lina then left the house and asked her friend Fely to demand a P20,000.00 ransom for the release of the spouses’ child to be paid within twenty-four hours. The spouses did not pay the ransom. After a couple of days, John discovered the box in the attic with his child already dead. According to the autopsy report, the child died of asphyxiation barely minutes after the box was sealed.
What crime or crimes, if any, did Lina and Fely commit? Explain.
A – Answer:
Lina is liable for Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention with Homicide.
Fely is liable as an accomplice (or co-principal, depending on participation) in the same crime.
Under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention is committed when a private individual kidnaps or detains another, and any of the following circumstances are present, such as when the victim is a minor, or when the detention is for the purpose of extorting ransom.
If death results, the crime becomes a special complex crime of kidnapping with homicide, regardless of whether the killing was intended
Although Lina, a private individual, deprived the one-week-old child of liberty by placing him inside a sealed box and hiding him in the attic. The victim is a minor (in fact, an infant), and the detention was clearly for the purpose of demanding ransom, as she instructed Fely to demand ₱20,000.
Although Lina may not have intended to kill the child, the child died as a consequence of the detention (asphyxiation shortly after being sealed in the box). Under the law, when death results, the offense is qualified into kidnapping with homicide, regardless of intent to kill.
Fely participated by demanding ransom, thereby cooperating in the execution of the crime. Depending on the extent of her participation and knowledge, she is liable at least as an accomplice, if not a co-principal.
Lina is liable for Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention with Homicide, while Fely is likewise criminally liable for the same offense, at least as an accomplice.
************
[2005] Candido stabbed an innocent bystander who accidentally bumped him. The innocent bystander died as a result of the stabbing. Candido was arrested and was tested to be positive for the use of “shabu” at the time he committed the stabbing. What should be the proper charge against Candido? Explain.
A – Answer:
The proper charge against Candido is homicide.
Under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, homicide is committed when a person kills another without any qualifying circumstance that would elevate the crime to murder.
For murder under Article 248, there must be qualifying circumstances such as treachery, evident premeditation, cruelty, or similar circumstances.
The use of dangerous drugs (e.g., shabu) does not qualify the killing to murder. Instead, under the law, intoxication or drug use may only be considered as a mitigating or aggravating circumstance, depending on whether it is habitual or intentional.
Candido stabbed an innocent bystander who accidentally bumped him, resulting in the latter’s death. There is no indication of any qualifying circumstance such as treachery or premeditation. The act appears to be a spur-of-the-moment reaction, not a deliberate method ensuring execution without risk.
Although Candido tested positive for shabu, this fact does not change the nature of the crime. It may only affect liability as a circumstance but does not elevate the killing to murder.
Therefore, the proper charge is homicide, since the killing was not attended by any qualifying circumstance required for murder.
A – Answer:
The charges are partly correct:
- Murder for the death of Mang Jose – correct
- Serious Physical Injuries through Reckless Imprudence for the grandson – incorrect
Under Article 248, murder is committed when a killing is attended by qualifying circumstances such as cruelty or abuse of superior strength.
Under Article 365, Reckless Imprudence applies when the act is not intentional. However, when the act becomes intentional, liability is no longer based on negligence but on intentional felony (e.g., homicide, murder, or physical injuries).
As to Mang Jose:
The driver initially hit the victims, which may have been accidental. However, after stopping, he deliberately reversed and ran over Mang Jose again, and even a third time. This clearly shows intent to kill.
Moreover, repeatedly running over a helpless, prostrate victim constitutes cruelty, because it deliberately augmented the victim’s suffering. Hence, the killing is properly qualified as murder.
As to the grandson:
Although the initial impact may have been due to reckless imprudence, the driver’s subsequent acts show a shift from negligence to intent. His actions were no longer purely accidental.
Thus, the injury to the grandson cannot be treated as reckless imprudence. Instead, it should be treated as an intentional felony, specifically serious physical injuries, not through reckless imprudence.
The charge of murder for Mang Jose’s death is correct, but the charge for the grandson should be serious physical injuries (intentional), not through reckless imprudence.
1999 No V. Define murder. What are the elements of the crime? [3%]
Answer:
Definition of Murder:
Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.
Elements of the Crime:
- A person was killed – There must be a victim who is a human being.
- The killing was unlawful – Not justified (e.g., not self-defense or lawful act).
- Malice aforethought – The offender had intent to kill or cause serious harm, or acted with reckless disregard for human life.
********
The accused, not Intending to kill the victim, treacherously shot the victim while the victim was turning his back to him. He aimed at and hit the victim only on the leg. The victim, however, died because of loss of blood. Can the accused be liable for homicide or murder, considering that treachery was clearly involved but there was no attempt to kill? Explain your answer. (3%)
Answer:
The accused is liable for murder, not merely homicide.
Although he did not intend to kill, the law applies the doctrine that a person is liable for all the natural and logical consequences of his felonious act. Here, the accused deliberately and unlawfully shot the victim, which is a felony. The fact that he only aimed at the leg does not negate liability since the victim’s death resulted from that act (loss of blood).
Moreover, treachery (alevosia) is present because the attack was sudden and the victim was shot while turning his back, leaving him no opportunity to defend himself. Treachery qualifies the killing to murder, regardless of the absence of intent to kill.
Thus, even without intent to kill, the accused is liable for murder because:
- Death resulted from his intentional felonious act; and
- The killing was attended by treachery, which qualifies it.
1996 No. 4: 2) Fidel and Fred harbored a long standing grudge against Jorge who refused to marry their sister Lorna, after the latter got pregnant by Jorge. After weeks of surveillance, they finally cornered Jorge in Ermita, Manila, when the latter was walking home late at might. Fidel and Fred forcibly brought Jorge to Zambales where they kept him hog-tied in a small nipa house located in the middle of a rice field. Two days later, they killed Jorge and dumped his body into the river. What crime or crimes did Fidel and Fred commit? Explain.
Answer:
Answer:
Fidel and Fred are liable for the special complex crime of kidnapping with murder.
Under the Revised Penal Code, when a person is illegally detained or kidnapped and is subsequently killed, the crime committed is the special complex crime of kidnapping with murder (or homicide). The killing is absorbed into the single indivisible offense, and the original intent to detain is immaterial once death occurs.
In this case, Fidel and Fred forcibly abducted Jorge in Ermita, Manila and brought him to Zambales against his will, where they hog-tied and detained him in an isolated nipa hut. This constitutes serious illegal detention. After two days, they killed Jorge and disposed of his body. Since the victim was killed during his detention, the law treats the acts as one special complex crime rather than separate offenses.
Therefore, Fidel and Fred are criminally liable for kidnapping with murder.
1995 No. 6: 1. On his way to buy a lotto ticket, a policeman suddenly found himself surrounded by four men. One of them wrestled the police officer to the ground and disarmed him while the other three companions who were armed with a hunting knife, an ice pick, and a balisong, repeatedly stabbed him. The policeman died as a result of the multiple stab wounds inflicted by his assailants. What crime or crimes were committed? Discuss fully.
Answer:
The assailants committed murder.
Under the Revised Penal Code, murder is committed when a person kills another with any of the qualifying circumstances such as treachery or when the killing is attended by abuse of superior strength. Abuse of superior strength is present when the offenders take advantage of their combined force to overpower the victim. Treachery exists when the attack is sudden and leaves the victim no opportunity to defend himself.
In this case, four men suddenly surrounded the policeman, with one wresting him to the ground and disarming him while the other three, armed with deadly weapons, repeatedly stabbed him. The attack was coordinated and overwhelming, clearly showing abuse of superior strength, as the assailants took advantage of their number and weapons against a single, defenseless victim. The manner of attack was also sudden and ensured that the victim could not defend himself, indicating treachery. These qualifying circumstances elevate the killing to murder.
Thus, the crime committed is murder, qualified by treachery and abuse of superior strength.
1995 No. 6: 2. Pascual operated a rice thresher in Barangay Napnud where he resided. Renato, a resident of the neighboring Barangay Guihaman, also operated a mobile rice thresher which he often brought to Barangay Napnud to thresh the palay of the farmers there. This was bitterly resented by Pascual, One afternoon Pascual, and his two sons confronted Renato and his men who were operating their mobile rice thresher along a feeder road in Napnud. A heated argument ensued. A barangay captain who was fetched by one of Pascual’s men tried to appease Pascual and Renato to prevent a violent confrontation. However, Pascual resented the intervention of the barangay captain and hacked him to death. What crime was committed by Pascual? Discuss fully.
Answer:
Pascual committed murder.
Under the Revised Penal Code, murder is committed when a person kills another with any of the qualifying circumstances such as treachery, abuse of superior strength, or other circumstances enumerated by law. In the absence of any qualifying circumstance, the crime is homicide. However, if the killing is attended by a qualifying circumstance, it is elevated to murder.
In this case, Pascual hacked the barangay captain to death when the latter was merely trying to pacify the parties and prevent violence. The attack was sudden and unexpected, and the barangay captain was unarmed and not in a position to defend himself, indicating treachery. The manner of attack ensured the execution of the crime without risk to Pascual from any defense the victim might have made. Moreover, the killing was done in disregard of the respect due to the barangay captain who was performing his duty, although this is considered a generic aggravating circumstance.
Thus, Pascual is liable for murder, qualified by treachery.
1993 No. 6: As a result of a misunderstanding during a meeting, Joe was mauled by Nestor, Jolan, Reden and Arthur. He ran towards his house but the four chased and caught him. Thereafter, they tied Joe’s hands at his back and attacked him. Nestor used a knife; Jolan, a shovel; Arthur, his fists; and Reden, a piece of wood. After killing Joe, Reden ordered the digging of a grave to bury Joe’s lifeless body. Thereafter, the four (4) left together. Convicted for the killing of Joe, Arthur now claims that his conviction is erroneous as it was not he who inflicted the fatal blow.What was the crime committed by the four assailants? Discuss with reasons.
Answer:
The four assailants committed murder, and all of them are liable as co-principals.
Under the Revised Penal Code, when two or more persons conspire to commit a felony, the act of one is the act of all, making each conspirator liable as a principal regardless of who inflicted the fatal injury. Murder is committed when a killing is attended by qualifying circumstances such as treachery or abuse of superior strength.
In this case, the four assailants acted in concert. They mauled Joe, chased him, tied his hands behind his back, and simultaneously attacked him with different weapons. Their coordinated actions show conspiracy and a common intent to kill. The tying of Joe’s hands rendered him defenseless, and the group attack using various weapons demonstrates abuse of superior strength, qualifying the killing to murder. Arthur’s claim that he did not inflict the fatal blow is immaterial because, by reason of conspiracy, each participant is equally responsible for the killing.
Thus, the crime committed is murder, and all four assailants, including Arthur, are liable as co-principals, regardless of who delivered the fatal blow.
1991 No 4: Two [2] Philippine National Police (PNPJ officers. X and Y, on board on motorboat with Z, a civilian as motor-man, arrested A and B who were in a banca, for dynamite fishing. The latter’s banca was towed towards the municipality. On the way, the PNP motorboat was intercepted by a third banca whose occupants, C, D, and E, tried to negotiate for the release of A and B and their banca. The PNP officers refused and instead shouted at C, D. and E that they are all under arrest. Thereupon, C, D, and E simultaneously threw dynamite sticks at the PNP motorboats. The first explosion killed X. A and B also reacted by throwing dynamite at the PNP motorboat: its explosion killed Y and Z. What crime or crimes did A, B, C, D and E commit?
Answer:
A, B, C, D, and E are liable for murder, with the use of explosives as a qualifying circumstance.
Under the Revised Penal Code, killing a person constitutes murder when attended by any of the qualifying circumstances, including explosion. The use of explosives such as dynamite qualifies the killing to murder. Moreover, when several persons act in concert or with a common purpose, conspiracy may be inferred, making each liable for the acts of the others.
In this case, C, D, and E initially threw dynamite sticks at the PNP motorboat, causing an explosion that killed X. Subsequently, A and B, who were under arrest, also threw dynamite at the same motorboat, resulting in another explosion that killed Y and Z. The use of dynamite clearly qualifies the killings to murder. Although A and B were originally detainees, they joined in the attack, showing unity of purpose with C, D, and E. Their coordinated acts indicate conspiracy, making all of them liable for the resulting deaths, regardless of who caused each specific fatal explosion.
Thus, A, B, C, D, and E are all liable for the crime of murder, qualified by the use of explosives, for the deaths of X, Y, and Z.
1991 No. 5: A, a 76-year old woman, was brought to the hospital in a coma with slight cerebral hemorrhage. An endotracheal tube was inserted in her mouth to facilitate her breathing. B, a hospital janitor, who had no business in the emergency room, for reasons known only to himself, removed the plaster holding the tube in place. A doctor saw him and told him to get out of the room. The plaster was replaced. But when the doctor was gone, B came back and removed the tube. The victim started to convulse and bleed in the mouth. Only the timely arrival of the nurse prevented the patient’s death. The patient was then transferred to another hospital where she died the next day of cardio-respiratory arrest. Is B criminally liable? If you believe so, what crime was committed by B, if any?
Answer:
Yes, B is criminally liable for attempted murder.
Law:
Under the Revised Penal Code, there is attempted felony when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts but does not perform all the acts of execution due to some cause other than his own spontaneous desistance. Murder is committed when there is intent to kill and any of the qualifying circumstances such as treachery. However, if death does not result from the accused’s acts, he may only be liable for an attempted or frustrated stage, depending on the circumstances.
Application:
In this case, B deliberately removed the endotracheal tube of a comatose and helpless patient, an act which clearly endangered her life and demonstrates intent to kill. The victim was defenseless and incapable of protecting herself, showing treachery. However, B did not perform all the acts necessary to cause death because the nurse arrived in time and saved the patient. The victim’s eventual death the next day was due to cardio-respiratory arrest and not conclusively shown to have been directly caused by B’s act. Thus, B’s liability does not extend to consummated or frustrated murder.
Conclusion:
Therefore, B is liable for attempted murder, qualified by treachery.
Answer:
Diego committed two (2) separate crimes of murder.
Law:
Under the Revised Penal Code, murder is committed when a person kills another with any of the qualifying circumstances such as treachery or by means of fire. The use of fire as a means of killing qualifies the crime to murder. When two or more persons are killed by different acts, separate crimes are committed.
Application:
First, Diego hacked Pablo to death during a heated argument. While the killing appears to have been done in a fit of anger, it was sudden and left Pablo no opportunity to defend himself, indicating treachery, thus qualifying the killing to murder.
Second, to conceal the crime, Diego burned Pablo’s house. In doing so, he also caused the death of Mario, who was hiding inside. The killing of Mario was committed by means of fire, which is a qualifying circumstance, making it murder as well. Even if Diego’s primary intent was to conceal Pablo’s killing, he is still liable for Mario’s death because it was a direct consequence of his deliberate act of burning the house.
Conclusion:
Thus, Diego is liable for two counts of murder: one for the killing of Pablo, and another for the death of Mario, qualified by the use of fire.
1987 No I: Juan had a land dispute with Pedro for a number of years. As Juan was coming down his house, he saw his brother, Rodolfo attack Pedro with a bolo from behind. Rodolfo was about to hit Pedro a second time while the latter was prostrate on the ground, when Carling, Pedro’s son, shouted, “I’ll kill you.” This distracted Rodolfo who then turned to Carling. Rodolfo and Carling fought with their bolos. While the two were fighting, Juan shouted to his brother Rodolfo: “Kill them both, they are our enemies,” Carling suffered a number of wounds and died on the spot. Pedro who was in serious condition was rushed to the hospital. He died five days later for loss of blood because the blood purchased from Manila which could have saved him, according to the doctor, did not arrive on timer Jose, father of Juan and Rodolfo, told his sons to hide in Manila and he gave them money for the purpose. When the police investigators saw Jose, he told the police investigators that Juan and Rodolfo went to Mindanao. What crimes, if any, did (a) Rodolfo, (b) Juan and (c) Jose commit? Explain your answer and state whether the acts committed are accompanied by circumstances affecting criminal liability.
(a) Rodolfo
Answer: Rodolfo is liable for two counts of murder.
Law: A killing is murder when attended by qualifying circumstances such as treachery. Treachery exists when the attack is sudden and ensures execution without risk to the offender.
Application: Rodolfo attacked Pedro from behind with a bolo, clearly showing treachery, as Pedro was caught off guard and unable to defend himself. Pedro later died from the wounds inflicted, making Rodolfo liable for murder. Rodolfo also fought with and killed Carling using a bolo. The manner of attack, involving deadly weapons and persistence in assault, likewise constitutes murder.
Conclusion: Rodolfo committed two murders, both attended by treachery.
(b) Juan
Answer: Juan is liable as a principal by inducement in the killing of Carling, and not liable for Pedro’s killing.
Law: A person is a principal by inducement when he directly and efficaciously induces another to commit a crime. The inducement must be the determining cause of the commission of the crime.
Application: Juan merely witnessed the initial attack on Pedro and did not induce Rodolfo to attack him; hence, he is not liable for Pedro’s killing. However, during the fight between Rodolfo and Carling, Juan shouted, “Kill them both, they are our enemies,” which constitutes direct inducement. This statement influenced Rodolfo to continue the attack, resulting in Carling’s death.
Conclusion: Juan is liable as a principal by inducement for murder (Carling’s death).
(c) Jose
Answer: Jose is liable as an accessory after the fact.
Law: An accessory is one who, having knowledge of the commission of the crime, harbors, conceals, or assists in the escape of the principal, or gives false information to authorities to prevent arrest.
Application: Jose gave money to Juan and Rodolfo to help them escape and misled the police by falsely stating that they went to Mindanao. These acts clearly show that he assisted the offenders to evade arrest.
Conclusion: Jose is liable as an accessory, although his liability may be exempt or mitigated because he is a relative (father) of the principals, under the rule exempting accessories who are relatives of the offenders, except in cases of profiting from the crime.
******
1986 No. 7: Roberto Cortez is the general manager of the family corporation. Because of his incompetence, inability to control his temper, and frequent quarrels with employees, his father finally decided to dismiss him. As Roberto was about to leave his office at six o’clock in the evening, his father went to his room, lambasted and fired him in the presence of several members of the office staff. Thoroughly enraged, Roberto ran out of the office, and, deciding to get even, waited at the exit of the parking lot where his father always passes at the close of each working day.
A few minutes later, Roberto saw his father’s car approach. He fired his pistol in the direction of the driver thinking that the latter was his father. The man died instantly. Unknown to Roberto, the victim of his fire was Tagahatid, a company messenger whom the father had instructed to drive his car home. Roberto surrendered to the authorities.
(a) After investigation, the fiscal filed an information against Roberto for murder. He alleged that the killing was characterized by treachery as the victim was ambushed. Roberto’s counsel insists that if any crime was committed, it should only be homicide attended by mitigating circumstances. Was the killing characterized by treachery? Explain.
Answer:
No, the killing was not characterized by treachery.
Law:
Treachery (alevosia) exists when the offender employs means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime which ensure its execution without risk to himself arising from any defense which the offended party might make, and such means are deliberately and consciously adopted. The qualifying circumstance must be based on the means of attack relative to the actual victim.
Application:
Although Roberto lay in wait and ambushed the approaching vehicle, he intended to kill his father, not the actual victim, Tagahatid. Treachery must be appreciated based on the manner of attack against the person actually killed, and it must be shown that the accused consciously adopted such means against that specific victim. Here, Roberto did not even know the identity of the person driving the car and therefore could not have deliberately adopted a treacherous mode of attack against Tagahatid. The element of conscious and deliberate adoption of the method of attack against the actual victim is lacking.
Conclusion:
Thus, treachery cannot be appreciated, and the killing is not qualified to murder on that ground.
(b) The penalty for parricide is reclusion perpetua to death. The penalty for murder is reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death. The penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal. Assume that you are the trial judge. Given the circumstances cited above, state the offense committed by Roberto Cortez and impose the correct penalty under circumstances. Explain why you have decided to impose this penalty.
Answer:
Roberto Cortez is liable for homicide, and the proper penalty is reclusion temporal, with the presence of mitigating circumstances to be considered.
Law:
Homicide is committed when a person kills another without any of the qualifying circumstances of murder. Under the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal. Mitigating circumstances such as passion and obfuscation (when the act is committed due to a powerful emotion arising from a lawful or sufficient cause) and voluntary surrender may reduce the penalty.
Application:
In this case, treachery cannot be appreciated, hence the killing is not murder. Neither is it parricide, since the person actually killed was not Roberto’s father but the company messenger. Roberto acted under passion and obfuscation, having just been publicly humiliated and dismissed by his father, which provoked intense anger. Additionally, Roberto voluntarily surrendered to the authorities. These are mitigating circumstances. Since there are no aggravating circumstances present, the penalty of reclusion temporal should be imposed in its minimum period pursuant to the rules on the application of penalties.
Conclusion:
Thus, Roberto is guilty of homicide, and the proper penalty is reclusion temporal in its minimum period, considering the mitigating circumstances of passion and obfuscation and voluntary surrender.
1985 No. 17. B set the house of A on fire by way of revenge against the latter. B did not know that A was inside. A died because of the fire. (A) What crime or crimes did B commit?
Answer:
B committed arson with homicide (a special complex crime).
Law:
When a person sets fire to a house and, by reason of or on the occasion of the fire, a person dies, the crime committed is the special complex crime of arson with homicide. The intent to kill is immaterial; what is controlling is that death resulted from the burning.
Application:
In this case, B intentionally set fire to A’s house out of revenge. Although B did not know that A was inside, A died as a consequence of the fire. Since the primary intent was to burn the house and death resulted from such act, the law treats the offense as a single indivisible crime of arson with homicide.
Conclusion:
Thus, B is liable for arson with homicide, even if he had no intent to kill A.
(B) Suppose B knew that A was inside, what crime or crimes did B commit?
Answer:
B committed murder.
Law:
When the offender sets fire to a house with intent to kill a person inside, and death results, the crime is murder, qualified by the circumstance of use of fire under the Revised Penal Code.
Application:
In this case, since B knew that A was inside the house when he set it on fire, it can be inferred that he intended not only to burn the property but also to kill A. The use of fire as a means to kill is a qualifying circumstance that elevates the killing to murder.
Conclusion:
Thus, B is liable for murder, qualified by the use of fire.
(C) Suppose before setting it on fire, B entered the house and killed A. Then B set the house on fire to hide the body of A.
Answer:
B committed two separate crimes: murder and arson.
Law:
When a person kills another and thereafter sets fire to conceal the crime, the offenses are separate and distinct. Murder is committed if the killing is attended by any qualifying circumstance such as treachery or other means. Arson is committed when property is intentionally burned. The burning, if done after the killing and merely to conceal the crime, is not absorbed but constitutes a separate offense.
Application:
In this case, B first entered the house and killed A. The killing is a consummated offense (murder or homicide depending on circumstances, but here it may be considered murder if qualifying circumstances are present). Afterward, B set the house on fire not to kill A but to conceal the body and the crime. Since the burning was an independent act with a distinct purpose, it gives rise to a separate crime of arson.
Conclusion:
Thus, B is liable for murder (for the killing of A) and arson (for burning the house to conceal the crime).
************
1984 No. 19. Melencio gave Janet, a call girl, P5,000 as blood money with the understanding that she would poison a business executive in the course of a tryst. She did so. But before she left the scene of the crime, she got the victim’s expensive watch, gold ring and wallet containing about P5,000. What crime or crimes were committed and by whom? Reasons.
Answer:
Janet is liable for murder and robbery, while Melencio is liable as a principal by inducement in murder.
Law:
Murder is committed when a person kills another with qualifying circumstances such as means of poison. Any person who directly induces another to commit a crime is a principal by inducement. Robbery is committed when personal property is taken with intent to gain and with violence or intimidation against persons. When the taking is a separate act not originally intended, it constitutes a distinct crime.
Application:
Janet poisoned the business executive during their tryst, which constitutes murder qualified by poison. Melencio, who gave Janet money and instructed her to commit the killing, is liable as a principal by inducement, since his inducement was the determining cause of the crime.
After the killing, Janet took the victim’s watch, ring, and wallet. This act was not part of the original agreement but was done on her own initiative, showing intent to gain. Since the taking was independent of the killing, it constitutes a separate crime of robbery, not absorbed in the murder.
Conclusion:
Janet is liable for murder and robbery, while Melencio is liable as a principal by inducement for murder only.
1982 No. 14. “A” and “B” were both astride the same carabao, the latter being behind the former. “X”, intending to kill “A”, aimed his gun at “A” and fired, inflicting a fatal wound on the chest which produced “A’”s death. “X” shot “A” again, but this time the bullet hit and passed through “A’”s left arm, causing less serious physical injuries, then lodged itself in “B’”s heart, causing his death. What crime or crimes is “X” guilty of?
Answer:
X is liable for two separate crimes: (1) murder (or homicide) for the death of A, and (2) homicide for the death of B under the doctrine of aberratio ictus (mistake in the blow).
Law:
Under the Revised Penal Code, when the offender intends to kill one person but accidentally kills another, the principle of aberratio ictus applies. The offender is liable for the consequences of his act, resulting in separate crimes: one for the intended victim and another for the actual victim. If a qualifying circumstance is present, the killing may be murder; otherwise, it is homicide.
Application:
X intended to kill A and succeeded in doing so when he fired the first shot that caused A’s death. This constitutes murder or homicide, depending on the presence of qualifying circumstances (none are stated, so it is homicide).
X fired a second shot still directed at A, but the bullet passed through A’s arm and struck B, killing him. This is a case of aberratio ictus, where the injury intended for A resulted in the death of B. Hence, X is liable for homicide for B’s death, even though B was not the intended victim.
Conclusion:
X is liable for two counts of homicide: one for the death of A and another for the death of B, the latter under the doctrine of aberratio ictus.
************
1978 No. V-b. Juan and Pedro harbored a long-standing grudge/ resentment against Jose who eloped with their sister, Maria, and later abandoned her. They laid meticulous plans to kill him. After weeks of waiting, their chance came when late one night, they cornered Jose as he was coming out of a disco-beer house in Makati, Metro Manila. The two forcibly shoved him into a waiting car and droved to Tagaytay City, where they kept Jose hog-tied in a 2 x 3 meter room. Two (2) days later, they killed Jose and dumped his body into ravine. What was the crime/crimes committed by Juan and Pedro? Discuss
Answer:
Juan and Pedro committed the special complex crime of kidnapping with murder.
Law:
Under the Revised Penal Code, when a person is kidnapped or illegally detained and is subsequently killed, the offense becomes a special complex crime of kidnapping with murder (or homicide). The detention and killing are treated as a single indivisible offense, regardless of the original intent of the offenders.
Application:
In this case, Juan and Pedro forcibly abducted Jose in Makati and brought him to Tagaytay, where he was hog-tied and detained in a small room for two days. This constitutes serious illegal detention. Thereafter, they killed Jose and disposed of his body. Since the victim was killed during the period of detention, the law considers the acts as one special complex crime rather than separate offenses. The prior planning and prolonged detention further show the deliberate nature of the crime.
Conclusion:
Thus, Juan and Pedro are liable for the special complex crime of kidnapping with murder.
1978 No. VII-a. A boarded a plane at the Manila Domestic Airport bound for Davao City. While the plane was still on the tarmac, its doors still open and waiting for the last passenger to board, A ordered the pilot P at gunpoint, to take the plane to Singapore. When P refused, A shot him to death. What offense/offenses did A commit? Discuss with reasons.
Answer:
A committed murder and attempted hijacking (or grave coercion/illegal interference with a flight crew).
Law:
Murder is committed when a person kills another with qualifying circumstances such as treachery. Separately, compelling a pilot at gunpoint to divert a plane constitutes an offense against public order or aviation safety (hijacking or coercion). If the unlawful demand is not carried out, the offender may be liable for an attempted stage of that offense.
Application:
A, while armed, ordered the pilot to fly the plane to Singapore, which constitutes an unlawful interference with the operation of an aircraft. When the pilot refused, A shot and killed him. The killing was sudden and executed while the victim was unarmed and defenseless, indicating treachery, thus qualifying the killing to murder. Since the intended diversion of the aircraft was not accomplished, A is liable only for the attempted commission of the unlawful taking or control of the aircraft.
Conclusion:
A is liable for murder (qualified by treachery) and attempted hijacking (or its equivalent offense of coercion/interference with a flight crew).
Reviews
There are no reviews yet.