I.

The theory should be applied is classical theory. Here, the abovementioned case talks
about qualified rape in which the basis of classical theory is: the criminal liability is human free
will and the purpose of the penalty is retribution as provided in the Revised Penal Code.
Meaning the three accused has the free will to rape AAA or not, in which they do and
committed evil.

(1) The crime was committed during nighttime. The three men brought AAA back to her
school after some time of persuasion to talk to them. The gin was also present
causing AAA to be nauseated and the three took advantage of her strength from
getting tipsy and that she was a minor.
(2) Yes, the crime happened at the public elementary school but there was no any
public authorities present when the crime was committed. The requisites for public
authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties: (a) the public authority is
engaged in the discharge of his duties, (b) offender knows the identity of the public
authority, and (c) the crime committed his presence as provided in the RPC.
However, none of these elements are present in the aforementioned case.
(3) The fact that AAA was a 12-year-old girl, a minor, and was also asked to drink a gin
and immediately got nauseated, she was already taken advantage of the three men.
The qualified rape in this case was intentionally done in excessive force out of
proportion to the means of defense available to the offended party. There was also
an inequality of forces between the victim (minor, AAA) and the aggressor (James,
William and Noah).
(4) The fact that AAA was asked to drink gin by the three aggressive men is already a
requisite to weaken the defense causing her to be taken advantage by the three
men.

o Not all of the three accused are entitled to indeterminate sentence as the
convicted of offenses are punished with death or life imprisonment.

o The proper penalty to be imposed is maximum penalty should be imposed

because of the aggravating circumstance of minority and committed by more
than one perpetrator specifically, the three of them. This is because the victim is
a minor and more than one men have raped her.
o The RPC provides that civil indemnity of Php 100,000 with interest at the rate of
6% per annum from date of finality of judgement is awarded for qualified rape.
(PP v. Gambao, PP vs. Joson)
 II.

o Intent to kill may be established through the overt and external acts and conduct of the
offender before, during and after the assault, or by the nature, location and number of
the wounds inflicted on the victim. The intention of Clifford was to kill the accused Gia
as stated in the abovementioned case because he grabbed the knife from his house and
pursued her after she ran away. In PP v. Rivera, the ff factors to determine the presence
of intent to kill are (1) the means used by malefactors, (2) the nature, location, and the
number of wounds sustained by the victim, (3) the conduct of the malefactors before,
during, or immediately after the killing of the victim, (4) the circumstances under which
the crime was committed and the motives of the accused. But the accused’s only
intention is to clarify whether her husband is present at the house of Clifford in which
Clifford asked the accused if she wanted to be hit again resulting to Gia utter
threatening words for Clifford to hit her with the chair.
o A felony is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution which should
produce the felony as a consequence, but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by
reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.
o The stabbing was attended by treachery because the requisites were present during the
heated argument, (a) insure that the offended was not able to put up any defense, not
even a token of defense and (2) the means, manner, and form was consciously and
deliberately chosen. (PP vs. Magallanes, August 1997). The RPC provides that treachery
may also be appreciated even when the victim was warned of the danger of his person
(“wait for me. If death is what you want, I’ll give it to you”), for what is decisive is that
execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or retaliate.
(Pp vs. Landicho). To add, one of the requisites of evident of premeditation is also
present to which, an act manifestly indicating that he has clung to his determination and
execution to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act. (RPC, LBR) where
Clifford hurried to his house to get a knife and pursued the accuse to establish his intent
to kill Gia.
o Yes, the accused is entitled of mitigating circumstances. The requisites of mitigating
circumstances are present in the abovementioned case, which are also written from
above.
o Yes, the accused is also entitled of justifying circumstances merely, who, defends of
himself or rights provided that the following circumstances concur; (1) unlawful
aggression, (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repeal it; and
(3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself, as
provided by the RPC. Here, the accused tried to defend herself from getting stabbed by
a knife by stabbing Clifford a pair of scissors, which resulted to Clifford’s injury to his
upper lumbar part of the body.
Yes, the accused was correctly charged of frustrated homicide. The elements present in the
abovementioned case are: (1) the accused intended to kill his victim, as manifested by his use
of a deadly weapon in his assault; (2) the victim sustained fatal or mortal wound but did not die
because of timely medical assistance; and (3) none of the qualifying circumstances for murder
under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, is present. (G.R. No. 178512, Alfredo
de Guzman v. PP)
Yes, the accused is guilty of the crime because it resulted to almost the death of Clifford, and
the elements of frustrated homicide is present in the abovementioned case, in which can result
to his death if not attended immediately to the hospital. The accused here can also be
sentenced to, as Art. 265 states that; less serious physical injuries. 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 and shall suffer
the penalty of arresto mayor.
o