1) A was driving down a dark road, on the radio A heard that car jackers are usi ng supposedly injured

women as bait to carjack motorists. A saw B, a young lady whose clothes are torn and bloodied screaming for help. A drove past her and wen t straight home. Seeing the news after he got home the lady was in fact a rape v ictim and te car behind him owned by C ID his vehicle as the one who drove past the lady. What would be the case against A if any? Will he be criminally liable? What could be his defenses? If he ran over A under the same pretenses as was provided will your answers be t he same? Why? Answer: A is not criminally liable. Theoretically, the only felony that A may have been possibly prosecuted for is the crime of abandonment of persons in danger. Howeve r, according to Art. 275 of the RPC, which provides for the aforementioned crime , only persons who shall fail to render assistance to any person whom they shall find in an uninhabited place wounded or in danger of dying, when they can rende r such assistance without detriment to themselves, shall be liable for the crime of abandonment of persons in danger. In the case at hand, A did not have the li berty to assist B without detriment to himself. The fact that car jackers are us ing supposedly injured women as bait to carjack motorists was sufficient for A t o take all of the precautions that he could possibly can in order to ensure his own safety. It was not incumbent upon A to ascertain whether or not B was really a crime victim, to the impairment of his own security. A has only acted upon a reasonable impulse, of which an ordinary man would have succumbed to. Consequently, if A had ran over B under the same pretenses, he would then be lia ble for the crime of homicide, if B were killed, or physical injuries, if the sa me survived. 2) A and B are together on the rooftop of a condominium, A and B are lovers, A w as horseplaying with B. When suddenly A stopped an stared fearfully at The space behind B then screaming "Tangina may multo sa likod mo!!" B through a fit of fe ar jumped from the balcony and died immediately after the fall. Is A criminally liable for B's death? Qualify your answer. Answer: B is not criminally liable for the death of A. Paragraph 1, Article 4 of the RPC states that any person comitting a felony, although the wrongful act be differe nt from that which he intended, shall be criminally liable. From the said provis ion, a principle was derived, which states that any person who creates a sense o f danger in the mind another person shall be liable for the injuries that the la tter incurrs. However, while it is true that it was the statement of B which cau sed A to jump from the building, it is equally true that the utterance of such s tatement by B is not a felony punishable by the RPC. And since the aforementione d principle was derived from paragraph 1, Article 4 of the RPC, its application should then be restricted to those instances where a felony has been committed b y the person who created such sense of danger; making the principle irrelevant i n the case at hand. Furthermore, the playful prank of B was only natural, since the two were lovers. What transpired, tragic though it may be, was only an acide nt, caused by an innocent and playful joke. Hence, based on the foregoing, B is clearly not ciminally liable for the death of A.