Instruction: Your answer must not exceed two sentences per topic.

Answers made in violation

of this instruction shall not be considered.
Problem: Pedro surreptitiously took a truck parked in Dapitan Street, Manila, containing 6 horses, 6
goats and 6 plastic sachet of marijuana, which are owned by different persons, not knowing that a
boy was sleeping inside. After driving the truck for two hours, Pedro entered a warehouse in Bulacan,
and sold the 12 animals and marijuana to Juan in the amount P20,000. Thereafter, he drove the truck
in an isolated place and burned it, and by reason thereof, the boy was killed by accident. Eventually,
Juan and Pedro were arrested. While the arrestees are being transported to the nearest police
station, Maria helped Juan, her son, and Pedro to escape from the custody of the arresting police
officers.
1. Is Pedro liable for robbery with homicide, qualified carnapping, qualified cattle rustling, kidnapping
with homicide and arson?
Answer: Pedro is liable for theft with respect to the taking of the goat and marijuana, qualified
carnapping since a passenger is killed in the course of the taking of the car, cattle rustling, which is
unqualified by the circumstance of homicide because homicide was already used as a component of
qualified carnapping. Pedro is neither liable for robbery with homicide involving the goat and
marijuana since the taking is not committed by means of violence or intimidation; nor arson for the
same shall be integrated to qualified carnapping; nor for kidnaping for lack of knowledge that he was
depriving the liberty of the boy.
Alternative: Pedro is liable for theft with respect to the taking of the goat and marijuana, qualified
cattle retiling since a person is killed in the course of the taking of the horses, carnapping, which is
unqualified by the circumstance of homicide because homicide was already used as a component of
qualified cattle rustling. Pedro is neither liable for robbery with homicide involving the goat and
marijuana since the taking is not committed by means of violence or intimidation; nor arson for the
same shall be integrated to qualified carnapping; nor for kidnaping for lack of knowledge that he was
depriving the liberty of the boy.
2. (a) Will you apply the single larceny rule to the crimes of cattle rustling and theft in this case?
The single larceny rule, which is a specie of delito continuado principle, presupposes that the several
acts committed under a single criminal impulse violated a single penal provision. Hence, the single
larceny rule is not applicable since cattle rustling and theft are punishable under different laws.
(b) Will you apply the delito continuado principle to all crimes in this case for having been committed
under a single criminal impulse?
The delito continuado principle presupposes that the several acts committed under a single criminal
impulse violated a single penal provision. Hence, the delito continuado rule is not applicable since the
crimes herein are punishable under different provisions of the Revised Penal Code.
(c) Will you apply the rule on compound crime to the single act of taking the truck with the animals
and marijuana?
Compound crime is a single act consists of two or more grave or less grave felonies. Since
carnapping involving the taking of truck and cattle rustling involving the taking of horses are not
felonies, they cannot be made components of a compound crime.
3. Is Juan liable as principal in the crime of fencing or as an accessory to the crimes committed by
Pedro?
Juan can be held liable as an accessory to the crimes of robbery, and cattle rustling but not to
carnapping since the anti-carnapping law did not adopt the technical nomenclature of the penalty of
the Revised Penal Code; or as principal to the crime of fencing for buying with intent to gain
properties, which are proceeds of robbery, carnapping and cattle rustling. “Carnapping” and “cattle
rustling” are within the contemplation of the word “theft” or “robbery” in the anti-fencing law since the
concepts of the former are the same as those of the latter.
4. (a) Is Maria liable as an accessory for the crimes committed by Pedro and Juan or as principal in
the crime of obstruction of justice?
Maria is not liable as an accessory to the crimes committed by her son, Juan, because of the
exempting circumstance of relationship. However, she is liable for assisting Juan to escape as
principal for obstruction of justice where the exempting circumstance of relationship is not applicable;
and for assisting Pedro to escape as principal for obstruction of justice or as accessory to the crimes
committed by him.
(b) Would your answer be the same if Pedro and Juan are detention prisoner and convicted prisoner,
respectively, when Maria helped them escape from detention?
If Pedro and Juan are detention prisoner and convicted prisoner, respectively, when Maria helped
them escape from detention, the crime committed is delivery of prisoner from jail.
5. (a) Will your answer be the same to question no. 1 with respect to the liability of Pedro, if he in
taking the vehicle with the animals, marijuana and sleeping boy used violence against the driver of
the truck, and the victim of homicide is not the sleeping boy, but a responding police, who was shot
by Pedro after burning the truck?
Answer: Pedro is liable for robbery with homicide involving the goat and marijuana. He is also liable
for cattle rustling and carnapping, which are unqualified by the circumstance of homicide because
homicide was already used as a component of special complex crime of robbery with homicide.
(b) Will you integrate cattle rustling, carnapping, and arson committed by reason or on occasion of
robbery to the special complex crime of robbery with homicide?
Arson for having been committed on occasion or by reason of robbery shall be integrated to the
special complex crime of robbery with homicide. Cattle rustling and carnapping for being punishable
under special laws shall be treated as separate crimes.
6. (a) Will your answer be the same in question no.1 with respect to the liability of Pedro, if he rented
the truck and its contents from its respective owners?
Pedro is liable for estafa through misappropriation with respect to the selling of the contents of the
truck where he acquired juridical possession.
(c) Is Pedro still liable for robbery with homicide, qualified carnapping, qualified cattle rustling,
kidnapping with homicide and arson?
Pedro can neither be held liable for robbery, carnapping and cattle rustling because he acquired
juridical possession over the truck, animals and marijuana, nor for kidnapping for lack of knowledge
that he was depriving the liberty of the boy. However, he is liable for arson with homicide with respect
to the burning of the truck and the killing of the boy as a consequence thereof.
7. Will your answer be the same in question no. 1 with respect to the liability of Pedro, if he did not
sell the animals and marijuana to Juan, but after taking the truck and driving it in an isolated place in
Bulacan, he burned the truck killing the animals deliberately, and killing the sleeping boy by accident?
Pedro is liable for qualified cattle rustling for killing horses without consent of the owner without intent
to gain and killing the boy in the course thereof, and arson with respect to the burning of truck, goats
and marijuana.
Alternative answer: Pedro is liable for cattle rustling for killing horses without consent of the owner
without intent to gain, and arson with homicide with respect to the burning of truck, goats and
marijuana and killing the boy in the course thereof.
8. (a) Will your answer be the same in question no. 3 with respect to the liability of Juan, if Pedro
agreed to steal the truck with the horses, and goats in consideration of P50,000 offered by Juan? Is
Juan liable for burning of the truck and killing of the sleeping boy?
Since there is conspiracy to steal the truck with the horses, and goats, Juan is liable as principal by
inducement to crime of carnapping, cattle rustling and robbery with homicide. However, he is liable for
the killing of the boy for being a logical consequence of the commission of robbery but he is not liable
for the burning of the truck because that is not part of the agreement.
(b) Is Juan liable for fencing in addition to other crime?
Since Juan is liable as principal, he cannot be held liable as an accessory.
9. (a) Will your answer be the same in question no. 1 with respect to the liability of Pedro if the truck
containing animals, marijuana and sleeping boy, was taken from a vessel anchored in Manila North
Harbor using a machine for cargo lifting?
The crime committed by Pedro is piracy.
(b) Is Pedro liable under PD No. 532?
Pedro is not liable for piracy under PD No. 532 since there is no violence or intimidation, which is an
important element of this crime.
10. (a) If Pedro, a minor, confessed to the crime of illegal possession of marijuana, which is
punishable by a penalty of not less than 12 years and 1 day but not more than 20 years, within the
range of what penalty under the Revised Penal Code the maximum and the minimum penalty under
the Islaw shall be fixed?
In fixing the penalty, the maximum penalty under the Islaw shall not exceed 20 years while the
minimum shall not be less than 12 years and 1 day.
(b) If Pedro is not a minor, what is the rule in fixing the maximum and minimum penalty under the
Islaw taking into consideration attendance of confession?
The maximum penalty shall be fixed within the range of the minimum period of prision mayor while
the minimum penalty shall be fixed within the range of prision correccional.
Good Luck!!! J
Note: This is the 2017 Final Exam for Arrellano University 4th students under Judge Marlo
Campanilla