B could be held liable for parricide because his act of hitting his wife with fistblows and therewith

inflicting physical
injuries on her, is felonious. A personcommitting a felonious act incurs criminal liability although the
wrongfulconsequence is different from what he intended (Art. 4, par. 1, Revised PenalCode).Criminal
Law Bar Examination Q & A (1994-2006)Although A died of heart attack, the said attack was generated by B's
feloniousact of hitting her with his fists. Such felonious act was the immediate cause ofthe heart attack, having
materially contributed to and hastened A's death. Eventhough B may have acted without intent to kill his wife, lack of
such intent is ofno moment when the victim dies. However, B may be given the mitigatingcircumstance of having
acted without intention to commit so grave a wrong as thatcommitted (Art. 13, par. 3, Revised Penal Code).Criminal
Liability; Felonious Act; Proximate Cause (1994)Bhey eloped with Scott. Whereupon, Bhey's father, Robin, and
brother, Rustom, wentto Scott's house. Upon reaching the house, Rustom inquired from Scott about hissister's
whereabouts, while Robin shouted and threatened to kill Scott. The latterthen went downstairs but Rustom held his
(Scott's) waist. Meanwhile Olive, theelder sister of Scott, carrying her two-month old child, approached Rustom
andScott to pacify them. Olive attempted to remove Rustom's hand from Scott's waist.But Rustom pulled Olive's
hand causing her to fall over her baby. The baby thendied moments later. Is Rustom criminally liable for the death of
the child?SUGGESTED ANSWER:Yes, Rustom is criminally liable for the death of the child because his feloniousact
was the proximate cause of such death. It was Rustom's act of pulling Olive'shand which caused the latter to fall on
her baby. Had It not been for said act ofRustom, which is undoubtedly felonious (at least slight coercion) there was
nocause for Olive to fall over her baby. In short, Rustom's felonious act is thecause of the evil caused. Any person
performing a felonious act is criminallyliable for the direct, natural and logical consequence thereof although
differentfrom what he intended (Art. 4, par. 1, RFC; People vs, Pugay, et al, GR No. 74324,Nov. 18, 1988).Criminal
Liability; Felonious Act; Proximate Cause (1997)While the crew of a steamer prepared to raise anchor at the Pasig
River, A,evidently impatient with the progress of work, began to use abusive languageagainst the men. B, one of the
members of the crew, remonstrated saying that theycould work best if they were not insulted. A took B's attitude as a
display ofinsubordination and, rising in a rage, moved towards B wielding a big knife andthreatening to stab B. At the
instant when A was only a few feet from B, thelatter, apparently believing himself to be in great and immediate peril,
threwhimself into the water, disappeared beneath the surface, and drowned. May A beheld criminally liable for the
death of B?SUGGESTED ANSWER:Yes. A can be held criminally liable for the death of B, Article 4 of the
RevisedPenal Code provides in part that criminal liability shall be incurred by anyperson committing a felony although
the wrongful act done be different from thatwhich he intended. In U.S. vs. Valdez 41 Phil. 497. where the victim who
wasthreatened by the accused with a knife, jumped into the river but because15 of 86of the strong current or because
he did not know how to swim, he drowned, theSupreme Court affirmed the conviction for homicide of the accused
because, if aperson against whom a criminal assault is directed believes himself to be indanger of death or great
bodily harm and in order to escape jumps into the water,impelled by the instinct of self-preservation, the assailant is
responsible forthe homicide in case death results by drowning.Criminal Liability; Felonious Act; Proximate Cause
(1999)During the robbery in a dwelling house, one of the culprits happened to fire hisgun upward in the ceiling without
meaning to kill anyone. The owner of the house

who was hiding thereat was hit and killed as a result.The defense theorized that the killing was a mere accident and
was not perpetratedin connection with, or for purposes of, the robbery. Will you sustain the defense?Why?
(4%)SUGGESTED ANSWER:No, I will not sustain the defense. The act being felonious and the proximatecause of
the victim's death, the offender is liable therefore although it may notbe intended or different from what he intended.
The offender shall be prosecutedfor the composite crime of robbery with homicide, whether the killing wasintentional
or accidental, as long as the killing was on occasion of the robbery.Criminal Liability; Felonious Act; Proximate Cause
(2001)Luis Cruz was deeply hurt when his offer of love was rejected by his girlfriendMarivella one afternoon when he
visited her. When he left her house, he walked asif he was sleepwalking so much so that a teenage snatcher was
able to grab hiscell phone and flee without being chased by Luis. At the next LRT station, heboarded one of the
coaches bound for Baclaran. While seated, he happened to read anewspaper left on the seat and noticed that the
headlines were about the sinkingof the Super Ferry while on its way to Cebu. He went over the list of
missingpassengers who were presumed dead and came across the name of his grandfather whohad raised him
from childhood after he was orphaned. He was shocked and his mindwent blank for a few minutes, after which he
ran amuck and, using his balisong,started stabbing at the passengers who then scampered away, with three of
themJumping out of the train and landing on the road below. All the three passengersdied later of their injuries at the
hospital. Is Luis liable for the death of thethree passengers who jumped out of the moving train? State your reasons.
(5%)SUGGESTED ANSWER:Yes, Luis is liable for their deaths because he was committing a felony when
hestarted stabbing at the passengers and such wrongful act was the proximate causeof said passengers' jumping
out of the train; hence their deaths.Criminal Law Bar Examination Q & A (1994-2006)Under Article 4, Revised Penal
Code, any person committing a felony shall incurcriminal liability although the wrongful act done be different from that
which heintended. In this case, the death of the three passengers was the direct, naturaland logical consequence of
Luis' felonious act which created an immediate sense ofdanger in the minds of said passengers who tried to avoid or
escape from it byjumping out of the train. (People vs. Arpa, 27 SCRA 1O37; U.S. vs. Valdez, 41Phil. 497}Criminal
Liability; Felonious Act; Proximate Cause (2004)On his way home from office, ZZ rode in a jeepney. Subsequently,
XX boarded thesame jeepney. Upon reaching a secluded spot in QC, XX pulled out a grenade fromhis bag and
announced a hold-up. He told ZZ to surrender his watch, wallet andcellphone. Fearing for his life, ZZ jumped out of
the vehicle. But as he fell, hishead hit the pavement, causing his instant death . Is XX liable for ZZ's death?Explain
briefly. (5%)SUGGESTED ANSWER:Yes, XX is liable for ZZ's death because his acts of pulling out a grenade
andannouncing a hold-up, coupled with a demand for the watch, wallet and cellphone ofZZ is felonious, and such
felonious act was the proximate cause of ZZ's jumpingout of the jeepney, resulting in the latter's death. Stated
otherwise, the deathof ZZ was the direct, natural and logical consequence of XX's felonious act whichcreated an
immediate sense of danger in the mind of ZZ who tried to avoid suchdanger by jumping out of the jeepney (People v.
Arpa, 27 SCRA 1037).Criminal Liability; Impossible Crime (2004)OZ and YO were both courting their co-employee,
SUE. Because of their bitterrivalry, OZ decided to get rid of YO by poisoning him. OZ poured a substance intoYO's
coffee thinking it was arsenic. It turned out that the substance was whitesugar substitute known as Equal. Nothing
happened to YO after he drank the coffee.What criminal liability did OZ incur, if any? Explain briefly. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:OZ incurred criminal liability for an impossible crime of murder. Criminalliability shall be
incurred by any person performing an act which would be anoffense against persons or property, were it not for the
inherent impossibility ofits accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectualmeans (Art.
4, par. 2, RFC).In the problem given, the impossibility of accomplishing the crime of murder, acrime against persons,
was due to the employment of ineffectual means which OZthought was poison. The law imputes criminal liability to
the offender although nocrime resulted, only to suppress his criminal propensity because subjectively, heis a criminal
though objectively, no crime was committed.Criminal Liability; Impossible Crimes (1994)16 of 86JP, Aries and Randal
planned to kill Elsa, a resident of Barangay Pula, Laurel,Batangas. They asked the assistance of Ella, who is familiar
with the place.On April 3, 1992, at about 10:00 in the evening, JP, Aries and Randal, all armedwith automatic
weapons, went to Barangay Pula. Ella, being the guide, directed hercompanions to the room in the house of Elsa.
Whereupon, JP, Aries and Randal firedtheir guns at her room. Fortunately, Elsa was not around as she attended a
prayermeeting that evening in another barangay in Laurel.JP, et al, were charged and convicted of attempted murder
by the Regional TrialCourt at Tanauan, Batangas.On appeal to the Court of Appeals, all the accused ascribed to the
trial court thesole error of finding them guilty of attempted murder. If you were the ponente,how will you decide the
appeal?SUGGESTED ANSWER:If I were the ponente, I will set aside the judgment convicting the accused
ofattempted murder and instead find them guilty of impossible crime under Art. 4,par. 2, RPC, in relation to Art. 59,
RPC. Liability for impossible crime arisesnot only when the impossibility is legal, but likewise when it is factual
orphysical impossibility, as in the case at bar. Elsa's absence from the house is aphysical impossibility which renders
the crime intended Inherently incapable ofaccomplishment. To convict the accused of attempted murder would make
Art. 4, par.2 practically useless as all circumstances which prevented the consummation of theoffense will be treated
as an incident independent of the actor's will which is anelement of attempted or frustrated felony (Intod vs. CA, 215
SCRA 52).Criminal Liability: Impossible Crimes (1998)Buddy always resented his classmate, Jun. One day. Buddy
planned to kill Jun bymixing poison in his lunch. Not knowing where he can get poison, he approachedanother
classmate, Jerry to whom he disclosed his evil plan. Because he himselfharbored resentment towards Jun, Jerry
gave Buddy a poison, which Buddy placed onJun's food. However, Jun did not die because, unknown to both Buddy
and Jerry, thepoison was actually powdered milk. 1, What crime or crimes, if any, did Jerry andBuddy commit? [3%]2.
Suppose that, because of his severe allergy to powdered milk, Jun had to behospitalized for 10 days for ingesting it.
Would your answer to the first questionbe the same? [2%]SUGGESTED ANSWER:1. Jerry and Buddy are liable for
the so-called "impossible crime" because, withintent to kill, they tried to poison Jun and thus perpetrate Murder, a
crimeagainst persons. Jun was not poisoned only because the would-be killers wereunaware that what they mixed
with the food of JunCriminal Law Bar Examination Q & A (1994-2006)was powdered milk, not poison. In short, the act
done with criminal intent byJerry and Buddy, would have constituted a crime against persons were it not forthe
inherent inefficacy of the means employed. Criminal liability is incurred bythem although no crime resulted, because
their act of trying to poison Jun iscriminal.