DAY 3 (PM) Criminal Law Flashcards
I
Roberto and Ricardo have had a long-standing dispute regarding conflicting claims over the ownership of a parcel of land. One night, Roberto was so enraged that he decided to kill Ricardo. Roberto asked his best friend, Rafael, to lend him a gun and drive him to Ricardo’s house. Rafael knew about Roberto’s plan to kill Ricardo, but agreed to lend him a gun nevertheless. Rafael also drove Roberto to the street corner nearest the house of Ricardo. Rafael waited for him there, until the task had been accomplished, so that he could drive Roberto to the next town to evade arrest. Roberto also asked another friend, Ruel, to stand guard outside Ricardo’s house, for the purpose of warning him in case there was any danger or possible witnesses, and to keep other persons away from the vicinity. All three - Roberto, Rafael and Ruel - agreed to the plan and their respective roles.
On the agreed date, Rafael drove Roberto and Ruel to the nearest corner near Ricardo’s house. Roberto and Ruel walked about 50 meters where Ruel took his post as guard, and Roberto walked about five (5) meters more, aimed the gun at Ricardo’s bedroom, and peppered it with bullets. When he thought that he had accomplished his plan, Roberto ran away, followed by Ruel, and together they rode in Rafael’s car where they drove to the next town to spend the night there. It turned out that Ricardo was out of town when the incident happened, and no one was in his room at the time it was peppered with bullets. Thus, no one was killed or injured during the incident.
(a) Was a crime committed? If yes, what is/are the crime/s committed?
Yes. In the case of Intod vs. Court of Appeals (GR 103119, October 21, 1992), the Supreme Court Ruled that when factual impossibility occurs because extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor were beyond his control, rendering the intended crime impossible of accomplishment, the offense committed is an impossible crime (Article 4, paragraph 2, RPC). The factual situation that made impossible the accomplishment of the crime intended when they peppered Ricardo’s room with bullets was the physical absence of the intended victim in the room.
I
Roberto and Ricardo have had a long-standing dispute regarding conflicting claims over the ownership of a parcel of land. One night, Roberto was so enraged that he decided to kill Ricardo. Roberto asked his best friend, Rafael, to lend him a gun and drive him to Ricardo’s house. Rafael knew about Roberto’s plan to kill Ricardo, but agreed to lend him a gun nevertheless. Rafael also drove Roberto to the street corner nearest the house of Ricardo. Rafael waited for him there, until the task had been accomplished, so that he could drive Roberto to the next town to evade arrest. Roberto also asked another friend, Ruel, to stand guard outside Ricardo’s house, for the purpose of warning him in case there was any danger or possible witnesses, and to keep other persons away from the vicinity. All three - Roberto, Rafael and Ruel - agreed to the plan and their respective roles.
On the agreed date, Rafael drove Roberto and Ruel to the nearest corner near Ricardo’s house. Roberto and Ruel walked about 50 meters where Ruel took his post as guard, and Roberto walked about five (5) meters more, aimed the gun at Ricardo’s bedroom, and peppered it with bullets. When he thought that he had accomplished his plan, Roberto ran away, followed by Ruel, and together they rode in Rafael’s car where they drove to the next town to spend the night there. It turned out that Ricardo was out of town when the incident happened, and no one was in his room at the time it was peppered with bullets. Thus, no one was killed or injured during the incident.
(b) If a crime was committed, what is the degree of participation of Roberto, Rafael, and Ruel?
All the perpetrators (Roberto, Rafael, and Ruel) are criminally liable as principals since the conspiracy among them was clearly established by their participation.
a) Roberto is principal by direct participation as he took a direct part in the execution of the plan to kill Ricardo by firing his gun at the room of the intended victim.
b) Rafael is principal by indispensable cooperation not only because he lent his gun to Roberto fully knowing the unlawful intent of the latter, but also drove him to the place of the commission of a crime and to a place where he could escape.
c) Ruel being involved in the criminal plan to kill Ricardo acted in conspiracy with the two (2) other perpetrators staying in the place from the time they planned the crime up to its finalization. They were together in the car driven by Rafael going to the next town in escaping from the scene of the crime.
II
Rico, a hit man, positioned himself at the rooftop of a nearby building of a bank, to serve as a lookout for Red and Rod while the two were robbing the bank, as the three of them had previously planned. Ramiro, a policeman, responded to the reported robbery. Rico saw Ramiro and, to eliminate the danger of Red and Rod being caught, pulled the trigger of his rifle, intending to kill Ramiro. He missed as Ramiro slipped and fell down to the ground. Instead, a woman depositor who was coming out of the bank was fatally shot. After their apprehension, Rico, Red, and Rod were charged with the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. Rico’s defense was that he never intended to shoot and kill the woman, only Ramiro. Red and Rod’s defense was that they were not responsible for the death of the woman as they had no participation therein.
(a) Is Rico’s defense meritorious?
Rico’s defense is not meritorious, because the homicide was committed on the occasion of a robbery; thus, the crime committed is robbery with homicide as long as the killing occurred on the occasion of the robbery whoever be the victim, whether intended or not.
II
Rico, a hit man, positioned himself at the rooftop of a nearby building of a bank, to serve as a lookout for Red and Rod while the two were robbing the bank, as the three of them had previously planned. Ramiro, a policeman, responded to the reported robbery. Rico saw Ramiro and, to eliminate the danger of Red and Rod being caught, pulled the trigger of his rifle, intending to kill Ramiro. He missed as Ramiro slipped and fell down to the ground. Instead, a woman depositor who was coming out of the bank was fatally shot. After their apprehension, Rico, Red, and Rod were charged with the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. Rico’s defense was that he never intended to shoot and kill the woman, only Ramiro. Red and Rod’s defense was that they were not responsible for the death of the woman as they had no participation therein.
(b) Is Red and Rod’s defense meritorious?
No, the defense of Red and Rod is also not meritorious. The concerted manner in which the three (Rico, Red, and Rod) perpetrated the crime showed clearly the presence of conspiracy. When a homicide takes place by reason or on the occasion of a robbery, all those who took part shall be guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, whether or not they actually participated in the killing.
Regardless of the fact that the killing of the woman depositor was individually performed by Rico, the basic principle in conspiracy is that the “act of one is the act of all”. Thus, the criminal liability of Rod and Red is one and the same as that of Rico (People vs. Hinlo, GR 212151, February 18, 2015).
III
On February 5, 2017, Rho Rio Fraternity held initiation rites. Present were: (i) Redmont, the Lord Chancellor and head of the fraternity; (ii) ten (10) members, one (1) of whom was Ric, and (iii) five (5) neophytes, one (1) of whom was Ronald. Absent were: (i) Rollie, the fraternity’s Vice Chancellor and who actually planned the initiation; and (ii) Ronnie, the owner of the house where the initiation was conducted.
Due to the severe beating suffered by Ronald on that occasion, he lost consciousness and was brought to the nearest hospital by Redmont and Ric. However, Ronald was declared dead on arrival at the hospital.
During the investigation of the case, it was found out that, although Ronald really wanted to join the fraternity because his father is also a member of the same fraternity, it was his best friend Ric who ultimately convinced him to join the fraternity and, as a prerequisite thereto, undergo initiation. It was also shown that Redmont and Ric did not actually participate in the beating of the neophytes (hazing). The two (2) either merely watched the hazing or helped in preparing food. And, lastly, two (2) days prior thereto, Ronnie texted Rollie that the fraternity may use his house as the venue for the planned initiation.
Aside from those who actually participated in the hazing, Redmont, Rollie, Ric, and Ronnie were criminally charged for the hazing of Ronald that resulted in the latter’s death.
(a) Are the four criminally liable?
Yes.
Redmont’s presence during the hazing is prima facie evidence of participation therein as principal, unless he prevented the commission of the hazing that caused physical harm to Ronald.
Ric is also criminally liable, because as member of the Fraternity who knowingly cooperated in carrying out the initiation by inducing the victim to be present thereat is liable as principal. He is penalized, not because of any participation in the infliction of harm to the victim, but due to his indispensable cooperation in the crime by successfully inducing or convincing the victim to undergo the hazing.
Rollie as Vice Chancellor of Rho Rio Fraternity, who actually planned the initiation though not present when the acts of hazing were committed, is liable as principal.
Ronnie, the owner of the place where the hazing was conducted, is liable as a principal because he had knowledge of the hazing conducted therein and failed to take any action to prevent occurrence of the same (RA 11053, amending RA 8049; Dungo and Sibal, Jr. v. People, GR 209464, July 1, 2015).
-> Initially, in RA 8049, the owner of the place where the hazing is conducted is liable as an accomplice, if he had knowledge of the event.
III
On February 5, 2017, Rho Rio Fraternity held initiation rites. Present were: (i) Redmont, the Lord Chancellor and head of the fraternity; (ii) ten (10) members, one (1) of whom was Ric, and (iii) five (5) neophytes, one (1) of whom was Ronald. Absent were: (i) Rollie, the fraternity’s Vice Chancellor and who actually planned the initiation; and (ii) Ronnie, the owner of the house where the initiation was conducted.
Due to the severe beating suffered by Ronald on that occasion, he lost consciousness and was brought to the nearest hospital by Redmont and Ric. However, Ronald was declared dead on arrival at the hospital.
During the investigation of the case, it was found out that, although Ronald really wanted to join the fraternity because his father is also a member of the same fraternity, it was his best friend Ric who ultimately convinced him to join the fraternity and, as a prerequisite thereto, undergo initiation. It was also shown that Redmont and Ric did not actually participate in the beating of the neophytes (hazing). The two (2) either merely watched the hazing or helped in preparing food. And, lastly, two (2) days prior thereto, Ronnie texted Rollie that the fraternity may use his house as the venue for the planned initiation.
Aside from those who actually participated in the hazing, Redmont, Rollie, Ric, and Ronnie were criminally charged for the hazing of Ronald that resulted in the latter’s death.
(b) Can all those criminally charged be exonerated upon proof that Ronald, knowing the risks, voluntarily submitted himself to the initiation? Will the absence of proof that the accused intended to kill the victim affect their liability?
The defense of consent will not apply, because the very act of inflicting physical pain or psychological suffering is, by itself, punishable; that it resulted in the neophyte’s death or physical injuries merely aggravated the act resulting in the imposition of higher penalty.
Also, RA 8049 (the Anti-Hazing Law) is malum prohibitum, thus the existence of criminal intent is immaterial.
III
On February 5, 2017, Rho Rio Fraternity held initiation rites. Present were: (i) Redmont, the Lord Chancellor and head of the fraternity; (ii) ten (10) members, one (1) of whom was Ric, and (iii) five (5) neophytes, one (1) of whom was Ronald. Absent were: (i) Rollie, the fraternity’s Vice Chancellor and who actually planned the initiation; and (ii) Ronnie, the owner of the house where the initiation was conducted.
Due to the severe beating suffered by Ronald on that occasion, he lost consciousness and was brought to the nearest hospital by Redmont and Ric. However, Ronald was declared dead on arrival at the hospital.
During the investigation of the case, it was found out that, although Ronald really wanted to join the fraternity because his father is also a member of the same fraternity, it was his best friend Ric who ultimately convinced him to join the fraternity and, as a prerequisite thereto, undergo initiation. It was also shown that Redmont and Ric did not actually participate in the beating of the neophytes (hazing). The two (2) either merely watched the hazing or helped in preparing food. And, lastly, two (2) days prior thereto, Ronnie texted Rollie that the fraternity may use his house as the venue for the planned initiation.
Aside from those who actually participated in the hazing, Redmont, Rollie, Ric, and Ronnie were criminally charged for the hazing of Ronald that resulted in the latter’s death.
(b) Can all those criminally charged be exonerated upon proof that Ronald, knowing the risks, voluntarily submitted himself to the initiation? Will the absence of proof that the accused intended to kill the victim affect their liability?
Alternative Answer
Under Section 12 of RA 11053 (Anti-Hazing Law of 2018), the defense that the recruit, neophyte, or applicant consented to being subjected to hazing shall not be available to persons prosecuted under this Act. It is likewise stated that any person charged under said law shall not be entitled to the mitigating circumstance that there was no intention to commit so grave a wrong.
IV
On the way home from work, Rica lost her necklace to a snatcher. A week later, she saw what looked like her necklace on display in a jewelry store in Raon. Believing that the necklace on display was the same necklace snatched from her the week before, she surreptitiously took the necklace without the knowledge and consent of the store owner. Later, the loss of the necklace was discovered, and Rica was shown on the CCTV camera of the store as the culprit. Accordingly, Rica was charged with theft of the necklace. Rica raised the defense that she could not be guilty as charged because she was the owner of the necklace and that the element of intent to gain was lacking.
What should be the verdict if:
(a) The necklace is proven to be owned by Rica?
Under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, theft is committed by any person who, with intent to gain but without violence against, or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take personal property of another without the latter’s consent. While the CCTV captured Rica surreptitiously taking the necklace from a jewelry store without the knowledge and consent of the store owner, she cannot be charged with theft, because the taking was made under a claim of ownership. The fact of ownership negates any intention to gain, as Rica cannot steal the necklace which she claims to own.
IV
On the way home from work, Rica lost her necklace to a snatcher. A week later, she saw what looked like her necklace on display in a jewelry store in Raon. Believing that the necklace on display was the same necklace snatched from her the week before, she surreptitiously took the necklace without the knowledge and consent of the store owner. Later, the loss of the necklace was discovered, and Rica was shown on the CCTV camera of the store as the culprit. Accordingly, Rica was charged with theft of the necklace. Rica raised the defense that she could not be guilty as charged because she was the owner of the necklace and that the element of intent to gain was lacking.
What should be the verdict if:
(b) It is proven that the store acquired the necklace from another person who was the real owner of the necklace?
Even if it was proven that the necklace was brought by the store from another person who was the real owner of the necklace, Rica still cannot be held accountable for theft absent a felonious intent. “Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea.” A crime is not committed if the mind of the person performing the act complained of is innocent.
The ruling in US vs. Vera (1 Phil 485, May 31, 1974) is emphatic, i.e., if a person takes personal property of another believing it to be his own, the presumption of intent to gain is rebutted and therefore he is not guilty of theft.
V
With a promise of reward, Robert asked Romy to bring him a young girl that he (Robert) can have carnal knowledge with. Romy agreed, seized an eight-year old girl and brought her to Robert. After receiving his reward, Romy left while Robert proceeded to have carnal knowledge with the girl.
(a) For what felony may Robert and Romy be charged?
Robert may be charged with the crime of Child Prostitution or other sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of RA 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation, and Discrimination Act) by having sexual intercourse with a child exploited in prostitution. Because the victim was under 12 years of age (in this case, 8 years), Robert should be prosecuted under Article 266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal Code as amended by RA 8353 (Anti-Rape Law of 1997).
Romy, on the other hand, may be charged with the crime of Child Prostitution or other sexual abuse under Section 5(a) of RA 7610 by acting as procurer of a child prostitute.
V
With a promise of reward, Robert asked Romy to bring him a young girl that he (Robert) can have carnal knowledge with. Romy agreed, seized an eight-year old girl and brought her to Robert. After receiving his reward, Romy left while Robert proceeded to have carnal knowledge with the girl.
(b) Will your answer in (a) be the same if the victim is a 15-year old lass who was enticed, through cunning and deceit of Romy, to voluntarily go to the house of Robert where the latter subsequently had carnal knowledge with her?
Yes.
RA 7610 covers sexual abuse committed against a child or children below eighteen (18) years of age. Children, who for money, profit, or any other consideration due to the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse. Robert and Romy may be prosecuted under the said law.
VI
A group of homeless and destitute persons invaded and occupied the houses built by the National Housing Authority (NHA) for certain military personnel. To gain entry to the houses, the group intimidated the security guards posted at the entrance gate with the firearms they were carrying and destroyed the padlocks of the doors of the houses with the use of crowbars and hammers. They claimed that they would occupy the houses and live therein because the houses were idle and they were entitled to free housing from the government.
For the reason that the houses were already awarded to military personnel who have been found to have fully complied with the requirements for the award thereof, NHA demanded the group to vacate within ten (10) days from notice the houses they occupied and were still occupying. Despite the lapse of the deadline, the group refused to vacate the houses in question.
What is the criminal liability of the members of the group, if any, for their actions?
The members of the group who, by means of violence against or intimidation, shall take possession of any real property or shall usurp any real rights in property belonging to another, is criminally liable under Article 312 of the RPC or Occupation of Real Property or Usurpation of Real Rights in Property. In addition, they may also be charged with other crimes resulting from their acts of violence.
VII
Robbie and Rannie are both inmates of the National Penitentiary, serving the maximum penalty for robbery which they committed some years before and for which they have been sentenced by final judgment. One day, Robbie tried to collect money owed by Rannie. Rannie insisted that he did not owe Robbie anything, and after a shouting episode, Rannie kicked Robbie in the stomach. Robbie fell to the ground in pain, and Rannie left him to go to the toilet to relieve himself. As Rannie was opening the door to the toilet and with his back turned against Robbie, Robbie stabbed him in the back with a bladed weapon that he had concealed in his waist. Hurt, Rannie ran to the nearest “kubol” where he fell. Robbie ran after him· and, while Rannie was lying on the ground, Robbie continued to stab him, inflicting a total of 15 stab wounds. He died on the spot. Robbie immediately surrendered to the Chief Warden. When prosecuted for the murder of Rannie, Robbie raised provocation and voluntary surrender as mitigating circumstances. The prosecution, on the other hand, claimed that there was treachery in the commission of the crime.
(a) Is Robbie a recidivist, or a quasi-recidivist?
Robbie is considered a quasi-recidivist pursuant to Article 160 of the RPC. At the time he stabbed Rannie, which resulted in the latter’s death, he had been convicted by final judgment and had been serving sentence at the National Penitentiary. In quasi-recidivism, the first and second offenses need not be embraced in the same title of the RPC. A recidivist, on the other hand, requires that the crimes committed must be embraced in the same title of the RPC. Because the killing of Rannie and the robbery, in which Robbie was previously convicted by final judgment, were not under the same title, Robbie cannot be considered a recidivist.
VII
Robbie and Rannie are both inmates of the National Penitentiary, serving the maximum penalty for robbery which they committed some years before and for which they have been sentenced by final judgment. One day, Robbie tried to collect money owed by Rannie. Rannie insisted that he did not owe Robbie anything, and after a shouting episode, Rannie kicked Robbie in the stomach. Robbie fell to the ground in pain, and Rannie left him to go to the toilet to relieve himself. As Rannie was opening the door to the toilet and with his back turned against Robbie, Robbie stabbed him in the back with a bladed weapon that he had concealed in his waist. Hurt, Rannie ran to the nearest “kubol” where he fell. Robbie ran after him· and, while Rannie was lying on the ground, Robbie continued to stab him, inflicting a total of 15 stab wounds. He died on the spot. Robbie immediately surrendered to the Chief Warden. When prosecuted for the murder of Rannie, Robbie raised provocation and voluntary surrender as mitigating circumstances. The prosecution, on the other hand, claimed that there was treachery in the commission of the crime.
(b) Can the mitigating circumstances raised by Robbie, if proven, lower the penalty for the crime committed?
No. If proven, the presence of the mitigating circumstances of lack of sufficient provocation and voluntary surrender would be of no consequence as quasi-recidivism cannot be offset by any ordinary mitigating circumstance.
People v. Macariola, GR L-40757, 24 January 1983
VIII
Randy was prosecuted for forcible abduction attended by the aggravating circumstance of recidivism. After trial, the court held that the prosecutor was able to prove the charge. Nonetheless, it appreciated in favor of Randy, on the basis of the defense’s evidence, the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender, uncontrollable fear, and provocation. Under Art. 342 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), the penalty for forcible abduction is reclusion temporal.
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, what penalty should be imposed on Randy?
