Q: Popoy and Basha are spouses.

Popoy saw a sex video scandal

involving her wife Basha. He asked Basha bout the video. Basha readily
admitted and asked for forgiveness. Without uttering a word, Popoy killed
Basha. Can exceptional circumstances be appreciated in the killing?
A: Yes. All elements are present (Art. 247) (1) that a legally married person
surprises his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another
person; and (2) that he kills any of them or both of them in the act or immediately
thereafter. These elements are present in this case. Though Basha and the other
man were not actually having sexual intercourse at the time Popoy shot her, the
shooting must be understood to be the continuation of the pursuit of the victim by
the accused.

Q: X was sleeping. He heard footsteps in kitchen. He got up, got his gun
and went out. He saw the door of his house open. Y was outside carrying
his cookbook recipe. He asked Y to give it back to him or else he will shoot
him. Y did not listen, he ran away. When Y was at a great distance from X, X
fired a shot but Y did not stop. X aimed for Ys leg but unfortunately, Y died.
Can X claim the justifying circumstance of defense of property?
A: Yes. All requisites are present. (1)Unlawful aggression;
(2)Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;
(3)Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. The
deceased had no right to take the property of X, while he was pleading with him
them to stop and return the cookbook to him. The assault on Xs property,
therefore, amounts to unlawful aggression as contemplated by law. In the case at
bar, there was an actual physical invasion of appellant's property which he had
the right to resist, pursuant to Art. 429 of the Civil Code (People v. Narvaez).
Q: At the time of his death, M is a trial court judge. One week after burial, E,
a columnist of a newspaper who was convicted of libel by M, published an
article wherein he wrote that the judge had kept a mistress in the conjugal
dwelling prior his demise. Ms widow, W, instituted a criminal complaint for
libel against E. Will it prosper?
A: No. No criminal action for defamation which consists in the imputation of a
crime which cannot be prosecuted de officio shall be brought except at the
instance of and upon complaint expressly filed by the offended party. (Art. 360,
last par.)

Q: S, with intent to intimidate P, aimed a gun at the concrete pavement on

which the latter was standing and squeezed the trigger. The bullet
ricocheted and grazed Ps left leg causing a small wound.
a) what crime/s may S be charged and convicted?
b) Will your answer be the same if P sustains a gunshot wound that
requires hospitalization for 10 days?
c) What if P dies, what crime/s is S guilty of?
A: a) Discharge of firearm under Art 254 of PRC. A person who shall shoot at
another with any firearm shall suffer a penalty of prision correccional unless
the facts of the case are such that the act can be held to constitute frustrated
or attempted homicide, parricide, murder, or any other crime for which a
higher penalty is prescribed.
b) Less Serious Physical injuries Art 265. Any person who shall inflict upon
another physical injuries not described in the preceding articles, but which
shall incapacitate the offended party for labor for ten days or more, or shall
require medical assistance for the same period, shall be guilty of less serious
physical injuries
c) Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill
another without the attendance of any of the circumstances enumerated in
the next preceding article, shall be deemed guilty of homicide
Q: Bads went to the house of Nel, a septuagenarian, to abduct her. He
however found her lifeless body on the couch. He took her body and took
her to a rest house. He called Nels rich son to ask for ransom. The son,
believing that Nel was still alive, deposited 5Million to Bads account. What
crime/s may Bads be charged of?
A: Grave threats (Art. 282)- Any person who shall threaten another with the
infliction upon the person, honor or property of the latter or of his family of any
wrong amounting to a crime. It cannot be Kidnapping with arbitrary detention
because this crime involves deprivation of liberty, which cannot be possible in
this case since Nel is already dead.
Q: Tanya is Andys mother-in-law. She visited Andys house and
unknowingly left her handbag there containing her ATM. Andy took the card
and was able to withdraw P20K.
a) Is Andy criminally and civilly liable therefore?
b) Will your answer be the same if in the above facts, Tanya and Andy are
siblings?

A: a) Andy is not criminally liable, just civilly liable. Art. 332 No criminal, but only
civil liability, shall result from the commission of the crime of theft, swindling or
malicious mischief committed or caused mutually by the following persons:
1. Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or relatives by affinity in the
same line (case falls under this category)
2. The widowed spouse with respect to the property which belonged to the
deceased spouse before the same shall have passed into the possession of
another; and
3. Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, if living
together.
b) No. Andy and Tanya are not living together. (no.3) Thus, Andy can be held
criminally and civilly liable.