Question: Police officer John ran after Randy who had just killed Willy in John’s presence.

John fired at
Randy in an attempt to stop him in his tracks. In response, Randy fired back at John, hitting him. John
was seriously wounded but survived due to timely medical assistance. Randy was then charged with
Frustrated Homicide. During the trial, Randy claimed self-defense.
Is Randy’s claim of self-defense tenable? Explain briefly. (5 points)

 Answer: No, Randy’s claim of self-defense is not tenable.

 Legal Basis: Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines provides the justifying
circumstances where a person may claim self-defense. For self-defense to be valid, the following
requisites must be present: (1) unlawful aggression by the victim, (2) reasonable necessity of the
means employed to prevent or repel it, and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
person defending himself.

 Application: In this case, Randy initially committed an unlawful act by killing Willy, which
constituted unlawful aggression on his part. Officer John’s pursuit of Randy was a lawful
response to the aggression committed by Randy. When Randy shot at Officer John, he was
responding to a lawful act, not unlawful aggression. As such, Randy's response with violence
cannot be considered as a legitimate exercise of self-defense.

 Conclusion: Therefore, Randy's claim of self-defense is not justified under Article 11, and he
remains criminally liable for Frustrated Homicide.

2. Question 3: Accident Defense

Question: Michael was driving along the highway when he executed a prohibited U-Turn. Dyords, a
police officer, accosted Michael for the traffic violation. A verbal argument ensued between them.
Dyords suddenly drew his service firearm, and pointed it at Michael. Dyords ordered Michael to alight
from his car, which the latter obeyed. Dyords then handcuffed Michael and pinned his head and body
against the pavement until he could no longer breathe. Michael died. Charged with Homicide, Dyords
interposed the exempting circumstance of accident as a defense.
If you were the judge, how would you resolve Dyords’ defense? Explain briefly. (5 points)

 Answer: As a judge, I would reject Dyords’ defense of accident.

 Legal Basis: Article 12(4) of the Revised Penal Code covers exempting circumstances, including
acts done by accident without fault or intent to cause harm. An accident is defined as an
unexpected event that occurs without the voluntary intent of the doer to cause the outcome.
For this defense to be valid, there must be no fault or negligence on the part of the accused.

 Application: In this scenario, Dyords used excessive force by pinning Michael down in a manner
that caused his death. Drawing his firearm, handcuffing Michael, and using such force indicate
intentional acts rather than an accident. Dyords’ actions were voluntary and beyond what was
 necessary to address the traffic violation. Hence, the death of Michael cannot be considered an
accident.

 Conclusion: Dyords’ defense of accident is not applicable, and he should be held criminally liable
for Homicide due to his intentional acts that caused Michael’s death.

3. Question 5: Voluntary Desistance

Question: A police officer responded to a disturbance call at around 1:30 p.m. in an apartment in
Quezon City. Upon his arrival, the police officer encountered Sisa stabbing her 1-year-old child with a
kitchen knife. The police officer grabbed Sisa, and she threw the knife on the floor. Sisa was immediately
taken into custody. Despite suffering multiple stab wounds on her back, the child survived. During the
trial, Sisa insisted that she can only be held liable for Attempted Parricide because she voluntarily
desisted when she threw down the knife.
Is Sisa’s contention tenable? Explain briefly. (5 points)

 Answer: No, Sisa’s contention of voluntary desistance is not tenable.

 Legal Basis: Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code discusses the stages of execution, including
attempted felonies, and the concept of voluntary desistance. Voluntary desistance occurs when
an offender stops from proceeding with their criminal act on their own volition before its
consummation. This must be done freely, without external forces or intervention.

 Application: In this case, Sisa did not voluntarily desist of her own will. She stopped her attack
only after the police officer intervened and restrained her. Voluntary desistance cannot be
claimed when the stopping of the criminal act is due to an external factor like police
intervention. Hence, her liability for the attempt is not diminished by her cessation of the act
after the officer’s intervention.

 Conclusion: Sisa's claim of voluntary desistance is not valid. She remains liable for Attempted
Parricide as her desistance was not of her own accord but due to police intervention.

Alex is walking on a dimly lit street late at night when a man suddenly blocks his way, points a knife at
him, and demands his wallet. Fearing for his life, Alex gives him the wallet. Later, Alex spots a
policeman and reports the robbery, describing the robber. The next day, the robber is apprehended
and identified as Benito. Benito claims that he cannot be held criminally liable because he was forced
by a syndicate to rob people under the threat of serious harm to him and his family.

(a) Can Benito invoke a justifying or exempting circumstance? (2.5%)

Answer: Benito may invoke an exempting circumstance but it is not applicable in this case.
Legal Basis: Article 12, paragraph 6, of the RPC provides that any person who acts under the compulsion
of an irresistible force is exempt from criminal liability. To be exempt, the threat or force must produce
such compulsion as to reduce the actor to a mere instrument without will.

Application: Benito claims he was forced to commit the robbery by a syndicate. However, for the
exemption to apply, the force must be irresistible and leave no other option. Benito’s claim must be
supported by evidence proving that he was under such a threat that deprived him of free will and left
him with no choice but to commit the crime. Without such evidence, his exemption defense is weak.

Conclusion: Benito's defense may not prosper as he failed to provide sufficient proof that the force used
against him was irresistible and deprived him of free will. Thus, he remains criminally liable.

II

Carla saw a child drowning in a river near her house. Knowing how to swim, she had the means to
save the child but chose not to do so, and the child drowned. Carla was later charged with reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide. She claimed that she had no legal duty to save the child and thus
cannot be held liable.

(a) Can Carla invoke a justifying or exempting circumstance in her defense? (2.5%)

Answer: No, Carla cannot invoke a justifying or exempting circumstance.

Legal Basis: Article 12 of the RPC lists exempting circumstances, but these apply to acts performed
without freedom or intent, such as involuntary actions, duress, or mental incapacity. Article 11
addresses justifying circumstances where the act is considered lawful, such as self-defense or defense of
others.

Application: Carla’s inaction does not fall under any justifying or exempting circumstances. She had the
physical ability to save the child but chose not to do so. The crime of reckless imprudence requires proof
of gross negligence or failure to exercise proper care, not merely an exemption defense.

Conclusion: Carla cannot claim any justifying or exempting circumstance as a defense. Her failure to act,
despite having the ability to save the child, may make her liable for reckless imprudence resulting in
homicide.

III

Pedro saw his neighbor, Juan, stealing his car. Enraged, Pedro took a baseball bat and attacked Juan,
severely injuring him. Juan later sued Pedro for serious physical injuries. Pedro claims that he was
justified in attacking Juan because Juan was committing a crime.

(a) Is Pedro's defense valid under the law? (2.5%)

Answer: Pedro’s defense is partially valid but may not fully exempt him from liability.

Legal Basis: Article 11, paragraph 1, of the RPC states that any person who acts in defense of their
person or rights is justified if there is (1) unlawful aggression, (2) reasonable necessity of the means
employed, and (3) lack of sufficient provocation.

Application: In this case, Juan’s act of stealing the car constitutes unlawful aggression against Pedro’s
property. However, the means Pedro used—attacking Juan with a baseball bat—must be reasonably
necessary. If Pedro’s response is deemed excessive, his defense may not be fully valid, and he may be
liable for the excess.

Conclusion: While Pedro can invoke self-defense of property under Article 11, the severity of the attack
with a baseball bat could be seen as disproportionate. Therefore, Pedro may still be held liable for any
excess in the force used.

IV

Mara accidentally bumped into a man who insulted and slapped her in public. In a fit of anger, she
picked up a nearby bottle and hit the man on the head, causing a serious injury. She claims that her
act was justified because she was publicly humiliated and physically attacked.

(a) Can Mara invoke a justifying circumstance for her act? (2.5%)

Answer: Mara’s defense could be considered under a justifying circumstance, but it may not fully
exempt her from liability.

Legal Basis: Article 11, paragraph 1, of the RPC provides for self-defense, which includes defense of
one’s person against unlawful aggression. To successfully invoke self-defense, the act must meet the
criteria of unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means to prevent or repel it, and lack of
sufficient provocation.

Application: The slap from the man constitutes unlawful aggression. However, the use of a bottle to hit
the man could be seen as excessive if it was not reasonably necessary to defend herself. Self-defense
must be proportional to the aggression faced.

Conclusion: Mara may invoke self-defense, but the court must determine if the use of the bottle was a
reasonably necessary response to the aggression. If deemed excessive, she could still be held liable for
the injuries caused.

Tonito, an 8-year-old boy, was watching a free concert at the Luneta Park with his father Tony. The child
stood on a chair to be able to see the performers on the stage. Juanito, a 10-year-old boy, who was also
watching the concert, could not see much of the performance on the stage because Tonito was blocking
his line of sight by standing on the chair. Using his elbow, Juanito strongly shoved Tonito to get a good
view of the stage. The shove caused Tonito to fall to the ground. Seeing this, Tony struck Juanito on the
head with his hand and caused the boy to fall and to hit his head on a chair. Tony also wanted to
strangle Juanito but the latter's aunt prevented him from doing so. Juanito sustained a lacerated wound
on the head that required medical attendance for 10 days.

Tony was charged with child abuse in violation of Sec. 10(a), in relation to Sec. 3(b)(2), of R.A. No.
7610 (Child Abuse Law) for allegedly doing an "act by deeds or words which debases, degrades or
demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being." In his defense, Tony contended
that he had no intention to maltreat Juanito, much less to degrade his intrinsic worth and dignity as a
human being.

(a) Distinguish crimes mala in se from crimes mala prohibita. (3%)

(b) Was Tony criminally liable for child abuse under R.A. No. 7610? Explain your answer. (3%)

 Answer: Tony may invoke a justifying circumstance of defense of a relative under Article 11(2) of
the Revised Penal Code, but his defense will likely fail due to the excessive force he used against
Juanito.

Law: Article 11(2) of the RPC provides that anyone who acts in defense of a relative is not criminally
liable, provided the following requisites are present: (1) unlawful aggression by the victim, (2)
reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it, and (3) lack of sufficient provocation
by the person defending the relative.

Application: In this case, there was unlawful aggression by Juanito when he shoved Tonito, causing him
to fall. However, Tony’s action of striking Juanito on the head, resulting in a lacerated wound, and
attempting to strangle him was not a reasonable means to prevent or repel the aggression, especially
considering that Juanito is a minor. The force used by Tony was excessive given the circumstances.

Conclusion: Therefore, Tony cannot fully invoke the justifying circumstance of defense of a relative. He
may still be held criminally liable for child abuse under R.A. No. 7610, given the excessive force used.

Sixteen year old Aliswan prodded Amethyst, his girlfriend, to remove her clothing while they were
secretly together in her bedroom late one evening. Failing to get a positive response from her, he
forcibly undressed her. Apprehensive about rousing the attention of the household who did not know of
his presence inside her room, she resisted him with minimal strength, but she was really sobbing in a
muffled manner. He then undressed himself while blocking- the door. Yet, the image of a hapless and
sobbing Amethyst soon brought him to his senses, and impelled him to leave her room naked. He did
not notice in his hurry that Amante, the father of Amethyst, who was then sitting alone on a sofa in the
sala, saw him leave his daughter's room naked.

Outside the house, the now-clothed Aliswan spotted Allesso, Amethyst's former suitor. Knowing how
Allesso had aggressively pursued Amethyst, Aliswan fatally stabbed Allesso. Aliswan immediately went
into hiding afterwards.
Upon learning from Amethyst about what Aliswan had done to her, an enraged Amante wanted to teach
Aliswan a lesson he would never forget. Amante set out the next day to look for Aliswan in his school.
There, Amante found a young man who looked very much like Aliswan. Amante immediately rushed and
knocked the young man unconscious on the pavement, and then draped his body with a prepared
tarpaulin reading RAPIST AKO HUWAG TULARAN. Everyone else in the school was shocked upon
witnessing what had just transpired, unable to believe that the timid and quiet Alisto, Aliswan's identical
twin brother, had committed rape.

(a) A criminal complaint for attempted rape with homicide was brought against Aliswan in the
Prosecutor's Office. However, after preliminary investigation, the Investigating Prosecutor
recommended the filing of two separate informations - one for attempted rape and the other
for homicide. Do you agree with the recommendation? Explain your answer. (3%)

(b) Before the trial court, Aliswan moved that the cases should be dismissed because he was entitled to
the exempting circumstance of minority. Is his motion correct? Explain your answer. (3%)

(c) After receiving medical attendance for 10 days, Alisto consulted you about filing the proper criminal
complaint against Amante. What crimes, if any, will you charge Amante with? Explain your answer. (3%)

(d) Answering the criminal complaint filed by Alisto, Amante contended that he had incurred no criminal
liability for lack of criminal intent on his part, his intended victim being Aliswan, not Alisto. What is this
defense of Amante, and explain if the same will prosper? (3%)

 Answer: Aliswan’s motion is correct; he is entitled to the exempting circumstance of minority

under Article 12(3) of the Revised Penal Code.

Law: Article 12(3) of the RPC exempts a person from criminal liability if they are under 15 years of age at
the time of the commission of the offense. The minimum age of criminal responsibility has been raised
to 15 years under the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act (R.A. No. 9344).

Application: Aliswan is 16 years old, but under R.A. No. 9344, minors aged 15 but below 18 may still be
exempt from criminal liability if they acted without discernment. Thus, it would be critical to determine
whether Aliswan acted with discernment. However, even if found to have discernment, he may still be
entitled to intervention programs rather than criminal prosecution.

Conclusion: If the court finds that Aliswan acted without discernment, his motion to dismiss the cases
on the ground of minority should be granted.

2(d): Answering the criminal complaint filed by Alisto, Amante contended that he had incurred no
criminal liability for lack of criminal intent on his part, his intended victim being Aliswan, not Alisto.
What is this defense of Amante, and explain if the same will prosper?

 Answer: Amante’s defense is based on the mistake of fact, but it is unlikely to prosper because
the mistake was reckless, not excusable.
Law: Under Article 12(4) of the RPC, a person is exempt from criminal liability if they act under a mistake
of fact without fault or negligence. For the mistake of fact to be a valid defense, it must be an honest
and reasonable mistake.

Application: In this case, Amante acted hastily and recklessly by attacking Alisto without verifying his
identity. Although he intended to harm Aliswan, he should have exercised more caution before resorting
to violence. The lack of due diligence means that his mistake cannot be considered excusable.

Conclusion: Amante’s defense of mistake of fact will likely fail because his actions were reckless, making
him criminally liable for his act against Alisto.

Pedro is married to Tessie. Juan is the first cousin of Tessie. While in the market, Pedro saw a man
stabbing Juan. Seeing the attack on Juan, Pedro picked up a spade nearby and hit the attacker on his
head, which caused the latter's death.

 Question: Can Pedro be absolved of the killing on the ground that it is in defense of a relative?
Explain.

  Assertion: Pedro can be absolved of the killing on the ground of defense of a relative.
  Law: Under Article 11(2) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), a person is justified in
inflicting harm to protect a relative from unlawful aggression, provided the response is
proportional and necessary.
  Application: Pedro witnessed Juan, his cousin, being stabbed, which constitutes
unlawful aggression. By intervening to stop the attack, Pedro acted to protect Juan. If it
can be established that his response (hitting the attacker) was immediate and necessary to
prevent further harm to Juan, then this justifies his actions.
  Conclusion: Therefore, if the circumstances support Pedro's claim that he acted in
defense of a relative, he may be absolved of liability for the killing.
 2. Procopio, a call center agent assigned to a graveyard shift, went home
earlier than usual. He proceeded immediately to their bedroom to change
his clothes. To his surprise, he found his wife Bionci in bed making love to
another woman, Magna. Enraged, Procopio grabbed a knife nearby and
stabbed Bionci, who died.
 a) What crime did Procopio commit, and what circumstance attended the case? Explain.
(3%)
b) Assuming that Procopio and Bionci were common-law spouses, will your answer be
the same? Explain. (2%)

a) Answer: Procopio committed the crime of homicide with the qualifying circumstance of
passion and obfuscation.

Law: Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code states that passion or obfuscation is a mitigating
circumstance in homicide.
Application: Procopio discovered his wife in bed with another woman, which could provoke a
strong emotional reaction. The stabbing of Bionci shows that he acted out of passion, leading to
his conviction for homicide rather than murder.

Conclusion: Procopio is guilty of homicide with a mitigating circumstance.

b) Answer: No, the answer would differ.

Law: The Revised Penal Code does not recognize common-law marriages, and infidelity in a
lawful marriage could not invoke the same emotional distress defenses.

Application: Since Procopio and Bionci were legally married, his emotional response might be
seen as more justified, but the legal implications of their status affect the court’s perception.

Conclusion: Therefore, Procopio’s conviction would likely remain the same, but the presence of
mitigating circumstances could be evaluated differently.

Dion and Talia were spouses. Dion always came home drunk since he lost his job a couple of months
ago. Talia had gotten used to the verbal abuse from Dion. One night, in addition to the usual verbal
abuse, Dion beat up Talia. The next morning, Dion saw the injury that he had inflicted upon Talia and
promised her that he would stop drinking and never beat her again. However, Dion did not make
good on his promise. Just after one week, he started drinking again. Talia once more endured the
usual verbal abuse. Afraid that he might beat her up again, Talia stabbed Dion with a kitchen knife
while he was passed out from imbibing too much alcohol. Talia was charged with the crime of
parricide.

a) May Talia invoke the defense of Battered Woman Syndrome to free herself from criminal
liability? Explain. (2.5%)
b) Will your answer be the same, assuming that Talia killed Dion after being beaten up a second
time? Explain. (2.5%)

a) Answer: Yes, Talia may invoke the defense of Battered Woman Syndrome.

Law: Philippine courts recognize the Battered Woman Syndrome as a legitimate defense for women who
kill their abusers in self-defense or out of fear for their lives.

Application: Talia had endured physical abuse and verbal threats from Dion, which would contribute to
her mental state at the time of the stabbing. This psychological condition could justify her belief that she
was in imminent danger.

Conclusion: Thus, Talia can use the defense of Battered Woman Syndrome to argue for a reduction in
her criminal liability.

b) Answer: Yes, the answer would remain the same.

Law: The recognition of Battered Woman Syndrome is not limited to the timing of the abusive incident
but rather to the long-term effects of sustained abuse.

Application: If Talia killed Dion after a second incident of abuse, it strengthens her defense since she had
a continued fear of further violence. The psychological impact remains significant.

Conclusion: Talia could still invoke the defense successfully if it can be established that she feared for
her life.