Ariel P.

Ramada

1. Immediately after murdering Bob, Jake went to his mother to seek refuge. His mother told him to
hide in the maid’s quarters until she finds a better place for him to hide. After two days, Jake
transferred to his aunt’s house. A week later, Jake was apprehended by the police. Can Jake’s
mother and aunt be made criminally liable as accessories to the crime of murder? Explain. (3 %)

Suggested Answer: Obviously, Jake’s mother was aware of her son’s having committed a felony, such
that her act of harboring and concealing him renders her liable as an accessory. But being an ascendant to
Jake, she is exempt from criminal liability by express provision of Article 20 of the Revised Penal Code.
On the other hand, the criminal liability of Jake’s aunt depends on her knowledge of his commission of
the felony, her act of harboring and concealing Jake would render her criminally liable as accessory to the
crime of murder; otherwise without knowledge of Jake’s commission of the felony, she would not be
liable.

Answer

No, Jake’s mother and Aunt are not criminally liable as an accessory to the crime of murder.

Under the Revised Penal Code, spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural and adopted
brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees.

In the present case, Jake’s mother being aware of the felony and that her act of harboring and
concealment renders her liable as an accessory, but being an ascendant, exempts her from criminal
liability. On the other hand, the criminal liability of Jake’s aunt depends on her knowledge of the felony,
otherwise without knowledge she will not be criminally liable.

Therefore Jake’s mother and Aunt are not criminally liable as an accessory to the crime of murder.

2. While his wife was on a 2-year scholarship abroad, Romeo was having an affair with his maid
Dulcinea. Realizing that the affair was going nowhere, Dulcinea told Romeo that she was going
back to the province to marry her childhood sweetheart. Clouded by anger and jealousy, Romeo
strangled Dulcinea to death while she was sleeping in the maid’s quarters. The following day,
Romeo was found catatonic inside the maid’s quarters. He was brought to the National Center for
Mental Health (NCMH) where he was diagnosed to be mentally unstable. Charged with murder,
Romeo pleaded insanity as a defense. Will Romeo’s defense prosper? Explain. (2%)

Suggested Answer: No, Romeo’s defense of insanity will not prosper because, even assuming that
Romeo was “insane” when diagnosed after he committed the crime, insanity as a defense to the
commission of crime must have existed and proven to be so existing at the precise moment when the
crime was being committed. The fact of the case indicate that Romeo committed the crime with
discernment.
 Answer

No, Romeo’s defense of insanity will not prosper.

Under the Revised Penal Code one of the circumstances which exempt from criminal liability is an
imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval.

In the present case, Romeo was diagnosed insane after he committed the felony, it obviously indicates
that Romeo committed the crime of murder with discernment and in a lucid state of mind.

Therefore Romeo defense will not prosper.

3. Jack and Jill have been married for seven years. One night, Jack came home drunk. Finding no
food on the table, Jack started hitting Jill only to apologize the following day. A week later, the
same episode occurred – Jack came home drunk and started hitting Jill. Fearing for her life, Jill
left and stayed with her sister. To woo Jill back, Jack sent her floral arrangements of spotted lilies
and confectioneries. Two days later, Jill returned home and decided to give Jack another chance.
After several days, however, Jack again came home drunk. The following day, he was found
dead. Jill was charged with parricide but raised the defense of "battered woman syndrome."
Would the defense prosper despite the absence of any of the elements for justifying circumstances
of self-defense under the Revised Penal Code? Explain. (2%)

Suggested Answer: Yes, Section 26 of Rep. Act No. 9262 provides that victim-survivors who are found
by the courts to be suffering from battered woman syndrome do not incur any criminal and civil liability
notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense under the
Revised Penal Code

Answer

Yes, Jill’s defense will prosper

Under the Anti – Violence against Women and their Children Act, victim-survivors who are found by the
courts to be suffering from battered women syndrome do not incur criminal and civil liability.

In the present case, appreciating that the defendant afflicted with the syndrome, there is a battering cycle
that occurred twice. Any woman may find herself in an abusive relationship with a man once. If it occurs
the second time and she remains in the situation she is define as a battered woman.

Therefore, Jill’s defense will prosper and will not incur criminal and civil liability.
 4. Ponciano borrowed Ruben’s gun, saying that he would use it to kill Freddie. Because Ruben also
resented Freddie, he readily lent his gun, but told Ponciano: "O, pagkabaril mo kay Freddie,
isauli mo kaagad, ha." Later, Ponciano killed Freddie, but used a knife because he did not want
Freddie’s neighbors to hear the gunshot. What, if any, is the liability of Ruben? Explain. (3%)

Suggested Answer: Ruben’s liability is that of an accomplice only because he merely cooperated in
Ponciano’s determination to kill Freddie. Such cooperation is not indispensable to the killing, as in fact
the killing was carried out without the use of Ruben’s gun. Neither way Ruben may be regarded as a co-
conspirator since he was not a participant in the decision-making of Ponciono to kill Freddie; he merely
cooperated in carrying out the plan which was already in place

Answer

Ruben’s liability is that of an accomplice

Under the Revised Penal Code, Accomplices are those persons who not being included in Article 17,
cooperate in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts.

In the present case, Ruben merely cooperated in Ponciano’s determination to kill Freddie. Such
cooperation is not indispensable to the killing, as in fact the killing was carried out without the use of
Ruben’s gun. Neither way Ruben may be regarded as a co-conspirator since he was not a participant in
the decision-making of Ponciono to kill Freddie; he merely cooperated in carrying out the plan which
was already in place.

Therefore Ruben is liable as an accomplice.

5. Hubert and Eunice were married in the Philippines. Hubert took graduate studies in New
York and met his former girlfriend Eula. They renewed their friendship and finally
decided to get married. The first wife, Eunice, heard about the marriage and secures a
copy of the marriage contract in New York. Eunice filed a case of Bigamy against Hubert
in the Philippines. Will the case prosper?

Suggested Answer: No, because the Philippine Courts have no jurisdiction over a crime
committed outside of the Philippine territory. Under the principle of territoriality, penal laws,
specifically the RPC, are enforceable only within the bounds of our territory (Art. 2, RPC).
No, the case will not prosper.

Under the Revised Penal Code, principle of territoriality, penal laws are enforceable only within
the bounds of our territory.

In the present case, the courts have no jurisdiction over a crime committed outside the
Philippine territory.

Therefore, the case of bigamy filed against Hubert in the Philippines will not prosper.

6. Emmanuel and Margarita, American citizens and employees of the U.S. State
Department, got married in the African state of Kenya where sterility is a ground for
annulment of marriage. Thereafter, the spouses were assigned to the U.S. Embassy in
Manila. On the first year of the spouses’ tour of duty in the Philippines, Margarita filed an
annulment case against Emmanuel before a Philippine court on the ground of her
husband’s sterility at the time of the celebration of the marriage. Will the suit prosper?
Explain your answer. (3%)

Suggested Answer: No, the suits will not prosper. As applied to foreign nationals with the
respect to family relations and status of persons, the nationality principle set forth in Article 15 of
the Civil Code will govern the relations of Emmanuel and Margarita. Since they are American
citizens, the governing law as to the ground for annulment is not Kenyan Law which Magarita
invokes in support of sterility as such ground; but should be U.S. Law, which is the national Law
of both Emmanuel and Margarita as recognized under Philippine Law. Hence, the Philippine
court will not give due course to the case based on Kenyan Law. The nationality principle as
expressed in the application of national law of foreign nationals by Philippine courts is
established by precedents (Pilapil v. IbaySomera, 174 SCRA 653[1989], Garcia v. Recio, 366
SCRA 437 [2001], Llorente v. Court of Appeals 345 SCRA 92 [2000], and Bayot v. Court of
Appeals 570 SCRA 472 [2008]).

Answer

No, the suits will not prosper.

Under the New Civil Code, laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition
and legal capacity of person are binding upon citizens of the Philippines.

In the present case, since Margarita and Emmanuel are American citizens, should be governed
by U.S. Law.

Therefore the suit will not prosper.

 7. Roderick and Faye were high school sweethearts. When Roderick was 18 and Faye, 16
years old, they started to live together as husband and wife without the benefit of
marriage. When Faye reached 18 years of age, her parents forcibly took her back and
arranged for her marriage to Brad. Although Faye lived with Brad after the marriage,
Roderick continued to regularly visit Faye while Brad was away at work. During their
marriage, Faye gave birth to a baby girl, Laica. When Faye was 25 years old, Brad
discovered her continued liason with Roderick and in one of their heated arguments, Faye
shot Brad to death. She lost no time in marrying her true love Roderick, without a
marriage license, claiming that they have been continuously cohabiting for more than 5
years. (A). Was the marriage of Roderick and Faye valid? (2%)

Suggested Answer: No. The marriage of Roderick and Faye is not valid. Art. 4, FC provides
that the absence of any of the essential or formal requisites renders the marriage void ab initio.
However, no license shall necessary for the marriage of a man and a woman who have lived
together as husband and wife for at least 5 years and without any legal impediment to marry each
other. In Republic v. Dayot, G.R. No. 175581, 28 March 2008, reiterating the doctrine in Niñal v.
Bayadog, G.R. No. 133778, 14 March 2000, this five-year period is characterized by exclusivity
and continuity. In the present case, the marriage of Roderick and Faye cannot be considered as a
marriage of exceptional character, because there were 2 legal impediments during their
cohabitation: minority on the part of Faye, during the first two years of cohabitation; and, lack of
legal capacity, since Faye married Brad at the age of 18. The absence of a marriage license made
the marriage of Faye and Roderick void ab initio.

Answer

No, the marriage of Roderick and Faye is not valid.

Under the Family Code, that the absence of any of the essential or formal requisites shall render
the marriage void ab initio.

In the present case, the marriage of Roderick and Faye cannot be considered as a marriage of
exceptional character, because there were 2 legal impediments during their cohabitation:
minority on the part of Faye, during the first two years of cohabitation; and, lack of legal
capacity, since Faye married Brad at the age of 18.

Therefore, the absence of a marriage license made the marriage of Faye and Roderick void ab
initio.

8. Rodolfo, married to Sharon, had an illicit affair with his secretary, Nanette, a 19-year old
girl, and begot a baby girl, Rona. Nanette sued Rodolfo for damages: actual, for hospital
and other medical expenses in delivering the child by caesarean section; moral, claiming
that Rodolfo promised to marry her, representing that he was single when, in fact, he was
not; and exemplary, to teach a lesson to like-minded Lotharios. When Rona reaches seven
 (7) years old, she tells Rodolfo that she prefers to live with him, because he is better off
financially than Nanette. If Rodolfo files an action for the custody of Rona, alleging that
he is Rona’s choice as custodial parent, will the court grant Rodolfo’s petition? Why or
why not? (2%)

Suggested Answer: No, because Rodolfo has no parental authority over Rona. He who has the
parental authority has the right to custody. Under the Family Code, the mother alone has parental
authority over the illegitimate child. This is true even if illegitimate father recognized the child
and even though he is giving support for the child. To acquire custody over Rona, Rodolfo
should first deprive Nanette of parental authority if there is ground under the law, and in a proper
court proceedings. In the same action, the court may award custody of Rona to Rodolfo if it is for
her best interest.

Answer

No, the petition will not be granted.

Under the Family Code, the mother alone has parental authority over the illegitimate child.

In the present case, he who has the authority has the right to custody. To acquire custody over
Rona, Rodolfo deprive Nanette of parental authority if there is ground in a proper court
proceedings. The court may award custody of Rona to Rodolfo if it is for her best interest.

Therefore, petition cannot be granted by the court.

9. The creditor who resorts to forced labor of a child under the pretext of reimbursing
himself for the debt incurred by the child’s father commits the crime of slavery

Suggested Answer: False, the proper offense is exploitation of child labor (Art. 273, RPC).
Exploitation of child labor is committed by a person, who under the pretext of reimbursing
himself of a debt incurred by an ascendant, guardian or person entrusted with the custody of a
minor, shall against the minor‟s will, retain him in his services.

Answer:

False

Under the Revised Penal Code, Exploitation of child labor is committed by a person, who under
the pretext of reimbursing himself of a debt incurred by an ascendant, guardian or person
entrusted with the custody of a minor, shall against the minor‟s will, retain him in his services.

Therefore, it is not a crime of slavery but exploitation

 10. Modesto and Abelardo are brothers. Sometime in August, 1998 while Abelardo was in
his office, Modesto, together with two other men in police uniform, came with two heavy
bags. Modesto asked Abelardo to keep the two bags in his vault until he comes back to
get them. When Abelardo later examined the two bags, he saw bundles of money that, in
his rough count, could not be less than P5 Million. He kept the money inside the vault
and soon he heard the news that a gang that included Modesto had been engaged in bank
robberies. Abelardo, unsure of what to do under the circumstances, kept quiet about the
two bags in his vault. Soon after, the police captured, and secured a confession from,
Modesto who admitted that their loot had been deposited with Abelardo. What is
Abelardo's liability? (7%)

Suggested Answer: Abelardo is not criminally liable. To be criminally liable as an accessory

under Article 19 of the Code, such person must have knowledge of the commission of the crime.
The term “knowledge “ under the law is not synonymous with suspicion. Mere suspicion that the
crime has been committed is not sufficient. Moreover, the facts as given in the problem would
show lack or absent of intent to conceal the effects of the crime as Abelardo is described as being
“unsure of what to do under the circumstances.” Even if he can be considered as an accessory
under paragraph 2 of Article 19, RPC, Abelardo is not liable, being the brother of Modesto under
Article 20, RPC.

Answer:

Abelardo is not criminally liable.

Under the Revised Penal Code, in order for a person to be criminally liable as an accessory
must have knowledge of the commission of the crime.

In the present case, mere suspicion that the crime has been committed is not sufficient. Even if he
can be considered as an accessory, being the brother of Modesto exempts him from criminal
liability under the Revised Penal Code.

Therefore, Abelardo has no criminal liability.