Gud peyt criminals

What is not a penalty?

---

a. measures of prevention and safety under Art. 24, RPC

b. confiscation and forfeiture of the proceeds or instruments of crime under Art. 45, RPC

c. bond to keep the peace under Art. 25, RPC

d. fine, under Art. 25, RPC

a. measures of prevention and safety under Art. 24, RPC

What is not a pecuniary penalty?

---

a. restitution

b. reparation of damage caused

c. indemnification of consequential damages

d. fines and costs of proceedings

a. restitution

What is not a ground to deny probation?

---

a. having appealed the court’s judgement of conviction

b. having once been or having previously undergone probation

c. having been previously convicted by final judgement of a light felony (i.e. crime carrying the penalty of arresto menor and/or fine not exceeding P200)

d. being sentenced to a maximum term of imprisonment of six years and one day

c. having been previously convicted by final judgement of a light felony (i.e. crime carrying the penalty of arresto menor and/or fine not exceeding P200)

Who is entitled to good conduct time allowance?

---

a. all prisoners, whether serving sentence by final judgement or mere detention prisoners not disqualified for credit for preventive imprisonment

b. only prisoners serving sentence by final judgement, assuming good conduct

c. detention prisoners only, assuming they have agreed to abide by the rules applicable to prisoners serving sentence by final judgement

d. all detention prisoners, even if they refused to abide by the rules applicable to prisoner serving sentence by final judgement, although in the latter case their entitlement thereto is reduced to 4/5 of time spent under preventive detention

a. all prisoners, whether serving sentence by final judgement or mere detention prisoners not disqualified for credit for preventive imprisonment

When must the death of an offender, who is charged with a crime in court occur in order to extinguish criminal liability and his personal penalties?

---

a. before final judgement

b. after final judgement

c. on appeal

d. anytime

a. before final judgement

What is the penalty two degrees higher than reclusion temporal, assuming a case of qualified theft which, on account of the amount involved would have been (representing the value of the truck and cargo thereof that were stolen by the accused) would be punishable with reclusion temporal?

---

a. under Article 25 of the Revised Penal Code, two [2] degrees higher than reclusion temporal is death

b. the higher penalty would be reclusion perpetua with the accessory penalties for said penalty, because Article 74 proscribes the imposition of the death penalty resulting from the graduation of the penalty

c. reclusion perpetua but with the accessory penalties of death under Article 40 of the Revised Penal Code if the death penalty is commuted, i.e., perpetual absolute disqualification and civil interdiction during thirty (30) years following the date of sentence, applying Article 74

d. reclusion perpetua for forty years with the accessory penalties of death under Article 40 of the Revised Penal Code, which means, in fine, that the accused is not entitled to pardon before the lapse of the forty-year period

d. reclusion perpetua for forty years with the accessory penalties of death under Article 40 of the Revised Penal Code, which means, in fine, that the accused is not entitled to pardon before the lapse of the forty-year period

NP received from JV several jewels. Some of the jewels were owned by JV and other belonged to strangers; all, however, came from JV and were delivered to NP to be sold on commission, with the express obligation on the part of the latter to pay to the former the proceeds of the sale of said jewels, or to return them if unsold.  NP, however, far from complying with her duty, pawned the said jewels at various dates during said months, as appears from the pawn tickets issued by the owner of HF's pawnshop, where the jewels had been pledged. The jewels were thus misappropriated, and the amount of the loan granted thereon embezzled, to the prejudice of JV. Under the circumstances:

---

a. JV can recover the jewels from the pawnshop, regardless of whether the latter may have lawfully acquired the same from NP

b. JV can no longer recover the jewels from the pawnshop, which knew nothing of the arrangement between NP and JV and had thought, at the time of the pledge, that they were owned by NP

c. JV can recover the jewels from the pawnshop only if he is willing to reimburse the pawnshop for the amount it has lent to NP

d. JV’s remedy has been reduce to reparation since the jewels can no longer be restored to him

a. JV can recover the jewels from the pawnshop, regardless of whether the latter may have lawfully acquired the same from NP

A Barangay Captain who, knowing the identity of persons who committed  the crime of arson within his jurisdiction and who merely remained silent, is —

---

a. guilty as an accessory-after-the-fact for concealing the crime of arson

b. guilty of concealment of crime if shown to have abused his official position

c. guilty of dereliction, not merely concealment of crime

d. not guilty of crime, even as an accessory-after-the-fact since mere silence is not a mode of incurring criminal liability

c. guilty of dereliction, not merely concealment of crime

FC was employed by RP, an army officer, to get a girl, AM, and her aunt, VE, into the army barracks, where RP was. RP spoke English and could neither speak nor understand the native language. FC acted as interpreter, translating English to the native language, to make the woman and the girl understand RP's desire that AM remain with him as his querida or paramour. FC, accompanied by several privates, at RP's order, arrested FB and took him to the barracks to be then turned over to VF who, obeying orders from the same lieutenant, which orders were translated by FC in order that it may be understood by VF, proceeded to kill the prisoner in or near the cemetery of the said town, by shooting him. Can FC be held liable for participating in the killing of FB?

---

a. Yes, as a principal by direct participation for acting as interpreter to convey the mastermind’s criminal determination or if not, at least, by indispensable cooperation

b. Yes, as an accomplice, because by serving as an interpreter, he cooperated in the execution of the crime by previous or simultaneous act, but not in the manner of a principal

c. Yes, but as an accessory-after-the-fact only as it was not shown that the accused took a direct part in the crime or compelled any other person to commit it, or that he cooperated in its consummation by some act without which it would not have been committed, or that he lent such cooperation by means of acts prior or simultaneous to its perpetration

d. No, because it cannot be held that the act of interpreting, in obedience to orders of his superior, the latter’s criminal determination so that it might be understood by the actual perpetrator of the crime, constituted cooperation in the commission thereof.

d. No, because it cannot be held that the act of interpreting, in obedience to orders of his superior, the latter’s criminal determination so that it might be understood by the actual perpetrator of the crime, constituted cooperation in the commission thereof

A light felony prescribes in:

---

a. one year

b. five years

c. two months

d. six months

c. two months

Republic Act 8294 on June 6, 1997, amended certain provisions of P.D. 1866, a special penal law penalizing illegal possession of firearms. With the passage of the aforementioned law, the penalty for simple illegal possession of a low-powered firearm, such as "paltik", has been reduced to prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine of not less than fifteen thousand pesos (P15,000.00). If the accused is entitled to the benefit of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, how is the maximum of his indeterminate sentence to be determined?

---

a. the court should sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall be the maximum fixed by said law

b. the court should sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law

c. the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence should be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, should be properly imposed under the rules of the Revised Penal Code

d. the maximum of the indeterminate sentence could be anywhere between the minimum and the maximum term penalty fixed by said law

c. the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence should be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, should be properly imposed under the rules of the Revised Penal Code

A disposition under which a defendant, after conviction and sentence is released subject to conditions imposed by the court and to the supervision of an officer appointed by the court to investigate such referral for investigation or to supervise the convict:

---

a. suspended sentence

b. indeterminate sentence

c. probation

d. destierro

c. probation

Which is not a mode of extinguishing the penalty of fine?

---

a. prescription, whether the crime be: punishable under the RPC or under a special penal law

b. service of the equivalent period of subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency where the financial circumstances of the offender has improved thereafter

c. amnesty

d. payment

b. service of the equivalent period of subsidiary imprisonment in case of

insolvency where the financial circumstances of the offender has improved

thereafter

What is the period of probation where the accused is sentenced to a fine and applies for probation?

---

a. It depends on the period fixed by the court, exercising solely its discretion on the matter

b. It depends on the amount of the fine which is first converted into an equivalent number of days of subsidiary imprisonment, the length of which determines the period of probation

c. It depends on the period fixed by the court but it cannot be less than, nor more than twice, the equivalent number of days of subsidiary imprisonment

d. None, because probation presupposes that the accused must have been sentenced to a penalty of imprisonment not exceeding six [6] years

c. It depends on the period fixed by the court but it cannot be less than, nor more than twice, the equivalent number of days of subsidiary imprisonment

Which is not a ground for partial extinction of criminal liability?

---

a. commutation of sentence

b. partial service of the sentence

c. conditional pardon

d. good conduct time allowance

d. good conduct time allowance

What does not prevent the period of prescription for crimes punishable under special penal laws from running?

---

a. dismissal of proceedings for reasons constituting jeopardy

b. non-discovery of the crime, if not known tc since the day of the commission

c. absence of the offender from the Philippine archipelago

d. institution of proceedings against the guilty person

c. absence of the offender from the Philippine archipelago

X, a detention prisoner who is not otherwise a recidivist or a habitual delinquent refused to abide by the rules and regulations prescribed for convicted prisoners serving sentence in the institution in which he is detained. Should he be convicted of the offense he is charged with, would he be entitled to credit for time spent in preventive detention?

---

a. Yes, but only to the reduced measure equivalent to four-fifths (4/5) of time spent in preventive detention

b. No, because he is not a recidivist nor a habitual delinquent

c. Yes, to the extent of the full time spent in preventive detention as his refusal to abide by the rules and regulations prescribed for convicted prisoners serving sentence in the institution in which he is detained is irrelevant, understandable and proper considering that he is a mere detention prisoner

d. No, precisely because he refused to abide by the rules and regulations prescribed for convicted prisoners serving sentence in the institution in which he is detained, which disqualifies him from that benefit.

a. Yes, but only to the reduced measure equivalent to four-fifths (4/5) of time

spent in preventive detention

Who is entitled to special time allowance for loyalty?

---

a. only prisoners serving sentence by final judgment who, on account of their loyalty to the penal institution, refused to escape from confinement even on the occasion of disorders, conflagrations, earthquakes, or other calamities mentioned in Art. 158, RPC;

b. only prisoners serving sentence by final judgment who have escaped from confinement on the occasion of disorders, conflagrations, earthquakes, or other calamities mentioned in Art. 158, RPC, but who gave themselves up to the authorities within 48 hours from the issuance of a proclamation announcing the passing away of the calamity or catastrophe therein referred to;

c. prisoners, whether serving sentence by final judgment or not, who escaped from confinement but gave themselves up to the authorities within 48 hours from the issuance of a proclamation announcing the passing away of the calamity of catastrophe therein referred to, as well as to those who remained in confinement despite the said calamity or catastrophe;

d. detention prisoners who have escaped from confinement on the occasion of disorders, conflagrations, earthquakes, or other calamities mentioned in Art. 158, RPC, as long as they gave themselves up to the authorities within 48 hours from the issuance of a proclamation announcing the passing away of the calamity or catastrophe therein referred to.

b. only prisoners serving sentence by final judgment who have escaped from confinement on the occasion of disorders, conflagrations, earthquakes, or other calamities mentioned in Art. 158, RPC, but who gave themselves up to the authorities within 48 hours from the issuance of a proclamation announcing the passing away of the calamity or catastrophe therein referred to;

Which is not among the civil liability arising ex delicto:

---

a. Restitution

b. Reparation for the damage caused

c. Indemnification for consequential damages

d. Fines

d. Fines

Which does not prescribe even after ONE (1) YEAR?

---

a. light penalties

b. libel or other similar offenses

c. crimes punishable with arresto mayor

d. offenses under special penal laws punished only by fine or by imprisonment for not more than one month or both

c. crimes punishable with arresto mayor

A wife who prepared the way for the perpetration of a crime of rape committed by her husband upon a 12-year-old victim, by conducting her by force and violence to a place apart among the trees, where she called to her husband, the person chiefly interested in perpetrating the crime, delivering the victim to her husband and then going away from the scene of the crime so that her husband might freely consummate the pre-arranged rape, as the latter did with violence and intimidation –

---

a. is a principal by direct participation

b. is a mere accomplice

c. is a principal by inducement

d. is a principal by indispensable cooperation

d. is a principal by indispensable cooperation

Under Article 70, the period of perpetual penalties is:

---

a. thirty years

b. forty years

c. twenty years

d. twenty years and one day to forty years

a. thirty years

The crime of falsification of a public document carries with it an imposable penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not more  than One million pesos (P1,000,000) [Art. 172, Revised Penal Code (RPC)]. Being  punishable by a correctional penalty, this crime prescribes in ten (10) years [Art. 90, par. 3 (RPC)]. Where the public document allegedly falsified was a notarized deed of sale  registered on May 26, 2000 with the Register of Deeds in the name of the accused, but  filing of the complaint-affidavit before the Prosecutor’s Office for falsification of a  public document was, however, filed only on October 18, 2011, one month after the  victim actually came to know thereof, then --

---

a. the criminal action may be deemed to have prescribed, considering the lapse of ten [10] years after the document was notarized, which may be considered its date of commission

b. the criminal action has not yet prescribed since the period of ten [10] years counted from the moment the victim came to know thereof has not yet lapsed at the time of the filing of the complaint-affidavit with the Prosecutor’s Office

c. the criminal action has not yet prescribed because the prescriptive period may only be considered to have started to run since the victim came to know thereof (date of actual discovery) and will only be interrupted upon the filing by of the Information in court

d. the criminal action has been prescribed, considering the lapse of ten [10] years after the document was registered with the Register of Deeds

d. the criminal action has been prescribed, considering the lapse of ten [10] years after the document was registered with the Register of Deeds

Which is not necessarily having a duration of six months and one day to six years?

---

a. destierro

b. suspension when imposed as an accessory penalty

c. suspension when imposed as a principal penalty

d. prisión correccional

b. suspension when imposed as an accessory penalty

A father simply said to his son who was at the time engaged in combat with another, "Hit him! Hit him!". After the father spoke those words, his son drew a firearm and shot his adversary. Under those circumstances:

---

a. the father cannot be held responsible simply for uttering those words in the excitement of the moment

b. the father is not necessarily responsible unless sufficient facts be shown upon which to affirm that the father foresaw the use of the firearm on the part of his son when he spoke the words referred to, for that reason, that he thereby induced him to use said weapon

c. the father is necessarily responsible because inducement to the commission of the crime by means of which a person may be considered a principal in the same manner as he who executes the act itself can be founded in commands, sometimes in advice, or in words of encouragement

d. the father is responsible for the injuries committed by the son after such advice was given, under the facts presented

b. the father is not necessarily responsible unless sufficient facts be shown upon which to affirm that the father foresaw the use of the firearm on the part of his son when he spoke the words referred to, for that reason, that he thereby induced him to use said weapon

A fine of P40,000.00, whether imposed as a single or as an alternative penalty, is:

a. a less grave penalty

b. a grave penalty

c. a correctional penalty

d. a light penalty

c. a correctional penalty

When is the penalty of arresto menor to be served in the house of the defendant?

---

a. if so requested by the defendant

b. if so provided in the decision of the court

c. if the defendant to be punished with that penalty is a minor over 15 but under 18, who had acted with discernment in committing the crime

d. never, since arresto menor means imprisonment from one day to thirty days

b. if so provided in the decision of the court

The deceased, C, coming upon V and L cleaning a caua said to them,  "What of it if you throw away the water as I also can get water as easily as you can?" V, indignant at this allusion replied. "Do you want a fight? Wait there." Immediately proceeding to the house, V procured a revolver and returned to the field. A brother of V, M, attempted to gain possession of the revolver and was killed (probably accidentally) for his pains. Loading the revolver anew, V pointed it at C wounding him in the stomach. The wife of C tried to succor her husband, but the other brother, L, stopped her and attacked C  with a bolo. C's nephew, U, was also wounded. Considering that C was wounded by a pistol fired by V, and it was a mortal wound, and C, almost immediately after receiving the pistol shot, was wounded with a bolo by L, this likewise being a mortal wound, and the death of C could only be attributed to "to the wounds", then:

---

a. both V and L should be acquitted because if two or more persons acted independently, and the actual perpetrator of the homicide cannot be identified, all must be acquitted, although it is certain that one of them was guilty

b. both V and L should be convicted but held liable individually in causing the death of C because where several individuals, acting independently, do acts which are calculated to produce the death of another, each is responsible for the consequences of his own acts

c. V, who first inflicted the mortal by firing the pistol shet, should be held liable for causing the death of C, while L should be acquitted as his act of inflicting the second mortal would with a bolo was no longer necessary to kill C

d. both V and L should be convicted and held liable as co-conspirators in causing the death of C because when several persons act in a concert conspiracy is implied and the act of one is the act of all

b. both V and L should be convicted but held liable individually in causing the

death of C because where several individuals, acting independently, do acts

which are calculated to produce the death of another, each is responsible for

the consequences of his own acts

When is the penalty for failure to give bond to keep the peace, whenever the convict is so obligated under his sentence, a period of detention not exceeding THIRTY (30) DAYS?

---

a. if the accused shall have been prosecuted for a light felony

b. if the accused shall have been prosecuted for a less grave felony

c. if the accused shall have been prosecuted for grave threats or light threats under Arts. 282 and 283, respectively, RPC

d. if the accused shall have been prosecuted for a grave felony

c. if the accused shall have been prosecuted for grave threats or light threats

under Arts. 282 and 283, respectively, RPC

X, a former Treasurer of a municipality, malversed public funds, which were carried out of the country by his wife, Y, and deposited in another country. Under  the circumstances, Y, assuming she knew the source of the funds but had no  participation whatsoever in the commission of malversation, would:

---

a. be exempt as an accessory-after-the fact under the RPC, in view of her relationship to the principal, but liable for obstruction of justice under PD1829

b. be liable as an accessory-after-the fact under Art. 19, RPC, being exempted from the exemption extended under Art. 20 thereof in view of the nature of her participation

c. not liable as a accessory-after-the fact as she merely acted as a fence, who is liable, instead, under PD 1612

d. be an accessory-after-the fact under Art. 19, RPC, but nevertheless exempt, as such, from criminal liability under Art. 20 thereof

b. be liable as an accessory-after-the fact under Art. 19, RPC, being exempted from the exemption extended under Art. 20 thereof in view of the nature of her participation

Which is an instance where a penal law favorable to the accused may not be applied retroactively?

---

a. the law fails to expressly provide for its retroactive application

b. a final sentence had already been pronounced upon the offender upon publication of such law or the offender is already serving sentence by final judgment at that time

c. the offender is already undergoing probation at the time the law takes effect;

d. the offender is a habitual delinquent

d. the offender is a habitual delinquent

The Sandiganbayan found AM guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating  Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act in all of eight (8) informations filed by the Provincial Fiscal against AM  and jointly tried before the Sandiganbayan. The Sandiganbayan imposed a penalty that totals fifty-six (56) years and eight (8) days of imprisonment. Under the circumstances:

---

a. the Sandiganbayan obviously did not err because courts can impose as many penalties as there are separate and distinct offenses committed, since for every individual crime committed, a corresponding penalty is prescribed by law

b. the Sandiganbayan obviously erred because the duration aggregate penalties for all convictions should not exceed forty [40] years

c. it is not obvious whether or not the Sandiganbayan erred unless the individual penalties for each conviction are known, as only then will it be possible to apply the three-fold rule

d. the Sandiganbayan obviously erred because such penalties can be impugned as contrary to the three-fold rule

a. the Sandiganbayan obviously did not err because courts can impose as many penalties as there are separate and distinct offenses committed, since for every individual crime committed, a corresponding penalty is prescribed by law

The prosecution seeks to hold four of the accused, XM, XN, ZS, and US,  criminally liable for the killing of JA and YN, particularly as co-authors thereof by  inducement, considering that they attended the conferences and entered no opposition  to the nefarious scheme while, after the commission of the murders, they joined with  the other accused in celebrating with a fiesta, although aside from this, these four did not  cooperate in the commission of the crimes, nor is it certain that, as relatives or retainers of XA, the four had any influence over XS and YS, and that any of the four said or did  anything that determined the commission of the crimes. Can they be considered as co-authors within the meaning of article [17] of the [Revised] Penal Code?

---

a. Yes, because their actions constituted joining in a conspiracy and where there is conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all

b. Yes, because their presence at the conferences and the fact that they entered no opposition to the nefarious scheme, being part and parcel of the development of the crime, could be considered active participation in the commission of the crime itself

c. No, because although what the four did amounted to joining in a conspiracy, the [Revised] Penal Code, in Article [8], does not punish conspiracy as such

d. Yes, their presence at the conferences and the fact that they entered no opposition to the nefarious scheme and, after the commission of the murders, they joined with the other accused in celebrating with a fiesta, make them liable as principals by inducement

c. No, because although what the four did amounted to joining in a conspiracy, the [Revised] Penal Code, in Article [8], does not punish conspiracy as such

The rate at which fine will be converted into subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency:

---

a. one day for each amount equivalent to the highest minimum wage rate prevailing in the Philippines at the time of conviction by the trial court

b. one day for each amount of fine equivalent to the highest minimum wage rate prevailing in the Philippines at the time of finality of the judgment of conviction

c. one day for each amount equivalent to the highest minimum wage rate prevailing in the Philippines at the time such insolvency is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the trial court

d. one day for each eight pesos of fine

c. one day for each amount equivalent to the highest minimum wage rate prevailing in the Philippines at the time such insolvency is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the trial court

Two vehicles collided at an intersection. X, driver of the vehicle found to  be at fault, was convicted of the crime of reckless imprudence resulting in damage to  property. Y, the prevailing party, unable to collect civil indemnity from X, seeks to  enforce the same against X’s employer. Can X’s employer be held subsidiarily liable for  the payment of civil indemnity?

---

a. only if X’s employer has been charged as co-principal in the crime

b. only if X’s employer is found guilty of negligence in the selection and supervision of X

c. only if X’s employer has been impleaded in the civil aspect of the criminal case

d. only if X’s employer is engaged in a business or industry and does not exclusively use the automobile for private ends

d. only if X’s employer is engaged in a business or industry and does not

exclusively use the automobile for private ends

RB is one of the several persons accused in more than one hundred (100)  counts of Estafa thru Falsification of Public Documents before the Sandiganbayan. In the meantime, RB run for and was elected as mayor in a town in Cavite. Subsequently, Batas Pambansa Big. 195 was passed amending, among others,  Section 13 of Republic Act No. 3019, providing that any incumbent public officer against whom any criminal-prosecution under a valid information under this Act or under Title 7, Book II of the Revised Penal Code or for any offense involving fraud upon government or public funds or property whether as a simple or as a complex offense and in whatever stage of execution and mode of participation, is pending in court, shall be suspended from office. On that basis and in all cases pending before the Sandiganbayan in which RB is one of the accused, the prosecution filed a motion to suspend all the accused-public officers "from their public positions or from any other public office that they may be holding ... for ninety (90) days ". Under the circumstances:

---

a. to apply the provision of Batas Pambansa Blg. 195 to the herein accused would be violative of the constitutional guarantee of protection against an ex post facto law and, therefore, the Sandiganbayan is not obligated to apply the provisions thereof and grant the motion

b. the Sandiganbayan can issue an order directing the suspension of all the accused including RB "from their public positions or from any other public office that they may be holding for ninety (90) days" because such “suspension amounts to a penalty and no penalty can be imposed which was not prescribed by law for the offense at the time of its commission

c. being unfavorable to the accused, the amendatory provision of Batas Pambansa Blg. 195 should be applied prospectively; besides, such suspension deprives the people of the services of an elected official and may not, therefore, be applied in this case

d. the Sandiganbayan may issue an order directing the suspension of all the accused including RB "from their public positions or from any other public office that they may be holding for ninety (90) days", as long as the informations in question are shown to be valid and regardless of when they were filed as such suspension does not constitute a penalty

d. the Sandiganbayan may issue an order directing the suspension of all the accused including RB "from their public positions or from any other public office that they may be holding for ninety (90) days", as long as the informations in question are shown to be valid and regardless of when they were filed as such suspension does not constitute a penalty

On the occasion of a student demonstration being held in the vicinity of Feati University, tragedy struck unexpectedly. FS, a 16-year-old student of the Philippine  Science High School, along with MF, CL, and EG, also students of the same school, were hit by a pillbox bomb causing the instantaneous death of FS and physical injuries to others. "Murder with Multiple Attempted Murder" was filed against AR, a security guard of Feati University, who threw the pillbox bomb at the student demonstrators who were then marching, resulting in an explosion, which act was so sudden and unexpected. In his signed confession, AR admitted throwing the pillbox, but only to scare the student demonstrators; unfortunately, he miscalculated his aim and distance, as it fell on the head of and killed the victim, as well as caused physical injuries to three other student demonstrators. If convicted of murder and multiple frustrated murder, would it be necessary to consider whether AR should be credited with the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong as that committed?

---

a. Yes, because there is a demonstrated disproportion between the means he employed to attain his purpose and the result obtained, which satisfies the indispensable requirement of this mitigating circumstance

b. Yes, because the result simply cannot be expected from the means he employed to accomplish his purpose

c. No, by committing a complex crime, the imposable penalty is already raised to the maximum of the most severe penalty for said crimes, which is death; hence, there should be no occasion to consider further any mitigating circumstance

d. Yes, since AR did not aim the pillbox at a particular student and merely wanted to scare the demonstrators, but unfortunately miscalculated his aim and distance, it appears, therefore, that there was no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed, which should be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance

c. No, by committing a complex crime, the imposable penalty is already raised to the maximum of the most severe penalty for said crimes, which is death; hence, there should be no occasion to consider further any mitigating circumstance

AA, EM, and ZM were charged, together with others, in the killing of VA, but it is claimed that there is no evidence to show that they took any actual part therein. It appears, however, that they were present from the time VA was taken from his house until the time he was killed. Under the evidence in the case, can they be considered as principals?

---

a. Yes, one who shares the guilty purpose and aids and abets the commission of a crime by his presence at the time of its perpetration, even though he may not have taken an active part in its material execution, is guilty as a principal

b. No, mere presence at the scene of the crime does not give rise to criminal liability

c. No, mere passive presence at the scene of another's crime, mere silence and failure to give the alarm, without evidence of agreement or conspiracy, do not constitute the cooperation required for complicity in the commission of the crime witnessed passively, or with regard to which one has kept silent

d. No, immediate participation in the criminal design entertained by the slayer is essential to the responsibility of one who is alleged to have taken a direct part in the killing, as a principal, but who has not himself inflicted an injury materially contributing to the death

a. Yes, one who shares the guilty purpose and aids and abets the commission of a crime by his presence at the time of its perpetration, even though he may not have taken an active part in its material execution, is guilty as a principal

X was pardoned by the Chief Executive, after his conviction for plunder, for which he was sentenced to reclusion perpetua. X wanted to run for office and feels he can do so because the terms of the pardon are silent about the matter or otherwise does not expressly prevent him from doing so. Therefore –

---

a. X cannot run for public office because although pardon extinguished his criminal liability, it does not erase the effects thereof

b. X cannot run for public office because though pardon by the Chief Executive extinguished his criminal liability and the effects thereof, the night to run for public office can only be restored if expressly remitted in the pardon

c. X can run for public office because the pardon in question extinguished: his criminal liability and does not expressly prevent him from gunning for a public office

d. X can run for public office inasmuch as the pardon, not being subject to a condition, should be regarded as absolute and, therefore, extinguished his criminal liability and all the effects thereof

b. X cannot run for public office because though pardon by the Chief Executive extinguished his criminal liability and the effects thereof, the right to run for public office can only be restored if expressly remitted in the pardon

Where three persons planned to rob a house but in carrying it out, only two of them went into the house to break open a trunk and carry off its contents, while the third merely remained downstairs to engage the owner of the house in a conversation to distract her attention, the latter –

---

a. is not liable for the robbery by his mere presence at the scene of the crime for, after all, he did not directly participate in robbing the house

b. is a principal because of conspiracy and: direct participation

c. is a mere accomplice, because while acting simultaneously with the two who went into the house to rob it, his act was not indispensable

d. is merely an accomplice because he did not directly participate in the robbery nor cooperate therein in an indispensable manner and there is no proof that robbery was committed upon his inducement

b. is a principal because of conspiracy and: direct participation

GJ, JV, and CI together with the two deceased DF and FR, were fencing the land of GF, father of deceased DF. The place was in the boundary of the highway and the hacienda owned by GF. At the place of the fencing is the house and rice drier of MN. At that time, MN was taking his rest, but when he heard that the walls of his house were being chiseled, he arose and there he saw the fencing going on. If the fencing would go on, MN would be prevented from getting into his house and the bodega of his ricemill. So, he addressed the group, saying “Pare, if possible you stop destroying my house and if possible we will talk it over what is good,” addressing FR, who is compadre of  MN. DF, however, answered: “No, gademit, proceed, go ahead.” MN apparently lost his equilibrium and he got his gun and shot DF, hitting him. As DF fell down, FR ran towards the jeep, and knowing there is a gun on the jeep, MN fired at FR, likewise hitting him. Both DF and FR died “as a result of the shooting”. Can MN, after admitting having shot DF and FR from the window of his house with the shotgun under the foregoing circumstances, claim that he did so in defense of his person and of his rights, and therefore he should be exempt from criminal liability?

---

a. No, MN's act in killing the deceased was not justifiable since not all the elements for justification are present; he should therefore be held responsible for the death of his victims, although he could be credited with the special mitigating circumstance of incomplete defense

b. No, defense of property is not of such importance as the right to life and defense of property can only be invoked when it is coupled with some form of attack on the person of one entrusted with said property

c. No, the defense of property, whether complete or incomplete, to be available, must be coupled with an attack by the one getting the property on the person defending it and, in this case, there is absolutely no evidence that an attack was attempted, much less made upon the person of MN, while the mere utterance "No, gademit proceed, go ahead" is not the unlawful aggression which entitles MN to the plea of self-defense

d. Yes, the assault on MN's property amounts to unlawful aggression as contemplated by law and, therefore, gives occasion to the lawful exercise of defense that MN did

a. No, MN's act in killing the deceased was not justifiable since not all the elements for justification are present; he should therefore be held responsible for the death of his victims, although he could be credited with the special mitigating circumstance of incomplete defense

What is the penalty for an impossible crime?

---

a. penalty for the crime intended to be committed but mitigated by lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong

b. penalty for the crime intended to be committed in its frustrated stage

c. arresto mayor or a fine from 200 to 500 pesos

d. penalty for the crime intended to be committed in its attempted stage

c. arresto mayor or a fine from 200 to 500 pesos

MB and the victim, EA, were together at a restaurant, until about 0:00 of the same evening, when MB and EA left for EA’s house. EP, the housemaid of the victim, opened the door for them; she saw MB and EA immediately proceed to EA’s room. The next morning, EP rose to wake her mistress. She knocked at the door. She found that EA was lying on her bed, facing downward, naked up to the waist, with legs spread apart, with a broken figurine beside her head. There was no eyewitness account of the killing. The extra-judicial confession of the accused merely stated, thus: "I thought she was going to do something dangerous to me so I grabbed her, and we started wrestling on the bed. She grabbed me by the throat and I picked up a statue of Jesus Christ that was sitting on the bedside stand and I hit her in the head. She fell flat on her face". Although a figurine was found broken beside the victim’s head, the medical report, however, does not show any injury or fracture of the skull and no sign of intracranial hemorrhage. It is established, however, that MB had anal intercourse with EA after she was already dead. The muscles of the anus did not close and also the presence of spermatozoa in the anal region as testified to by the medico-legal officer, and confirmed to be positive in the Laboratory Report, clearly established the coitus after death. MB had a notorious advantage of height accused had over his hapless victim, EA, he being 6 feet tall and weighing 155 lbs. while the girl was only 4 ft 11 inches tall. Aside from alleging treachery in the information, there were no allegations of abuse of superiority and scoffing or outraging of the corpse of the victim. Under the circumstances, the crime committed is:

---

a. murder, qualified by abuse of superiority and aggravated by outraging or scoffing at the corpse of the victim

b. murder, qualified by outraging or scoffing at the corpse of the victim

c. murder, qualified by treachery and aggravated by abuse of: superiority and scoffing or outraging at the corpse of the victim

d. homicide only, considering that no qualifying or aggravating circumstance could be proved

a. murder, qualified by abuse of superiority and aggravated by outraging or scoffing at the corpse of the victim

RB was charged with Rape and eventually convicted thereof. Pending  appeal of his conviction, RB died. As a result:

---

a. only the criminal aspect should be dismissed, while the case may proceed as regards the civil liability of the accused, but the obligation to respond therefor is transmissible to RB’s heirs only to the extent of what they may inherit from him

b. only the criminal aspect should be dismissed, while the case may proceed as regards the civil liability of the accused, the obligation to respond therefor being transmissible to RB’s heirs

c. only the criminal aspect should be dismissed while the survival of the civil liability depends upon whether or not those who have the right to demand it insist on pursuing the civil liability against RB’s heirs

d. both the criminal and civil aspect of the case should be dismissed as the death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes only his criminal liability but also his civil liability

d. both the criminal and civil aspect of the case should be dismissed as the death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes only his criminal liability but also his civil liability

Five different thefts were committed. It has been proved that X, knowing that the oil which was brought to her for sale was stolen by the persons who were seeking to sell it to her, advised them thereupon to continue stealing oil and furnished them vessels in which to carry it and contributed on five different occasions to the realization of the said thefts. The physical authors of the crime were boys under 15 years of age. They acted upon the suggestions of X without discernment or judgment of their own. What is the liability of X?

---

a. X is a mere accessory-after-the-fact for having benefited from or assisted the principals (albeit themselves exempt from criminal liability) in benefitting from the proceeds of the crime

b. X is a principal by inducement, which inducement not merely favored the execution of the crime but determined its commission

c. although not liable under the Revised Penal Code, under which the liability of an accessory is subordinate to that of the principal, she is nevertheless liable as a fence under PD No. 1612

d. X is not criminally liable because her act would have made her an accessory-after-the-fact but there can be no accessory without a principal

b. X is a principal by inducement, which inducement not merely favored the execution of the crime but determined its commission

The spouses W and Z, coming from Nasugbu, returned to their house in Balayan, and before entering the same called to X, W’s sister, who they knew was there. Receiving no reply, they went up into the house, the husband leading the way and opening the door, followed by his wife who, once inside, lit a match and then a small kerosene lamp there was in the house. In the meantime, the husband approached the place where X was, who, startled, immediately awoke and, believing that her honor was in danger, seized a pocketknife used in spinning hemp, which was in a box at her side, and with it, attacked and struck Z, who was near her, a blow in the breast. Under the circumstances, can X plead self-defense?

---

a. Yes, because although mistaken, had the facts been as she had thought them to be, she would have been perfectly justified in so acting in defense of her honor or chastity

b. Yes, although the criminal act is not altogether excusable, she should at least be entitled to the benefit of an incomplete self-defense against what, at least, in her mind, she thought to be an unprovoked unlawful aggression against her chastity

c. No, she is not entitled to invoke self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, because the fact shows the actual absence of unlawful aggression, which is a primordial or indispensable element of this justifying circumstance

d. No, there was, in the first place, no real need of wounding with the said weapon him who had merely caught her arm, and perhaps did so to awaken her, as she was asleep and had not replied to her sister's calls

b. Yes, although the criminal act is not altogether excusable, she should at least be entitled to the benefit of an incomplete self-defense against what, at least, in her mind, she thought to be an unprovoked unlawful aggression against her chastity

In a murder case committed by several persons, those who were present from the time the victim was taken from his house until the time the victim was killed but who did not take actual part in the said killing, are nevertheless guilty as principals; however, those who did not accompany the rest of the party to the place where the victim was killed, but who were only detailed to guard the victim's companion at a point some distance from the place where the killing of the victim took place –

---

a. cannot be convicted of any crime because mere presence at the scene of the crime is not sufficient to give rise to criminal liability

b. can be convicted as accomplices for having committed acts simultaneous to the commission of murder, but not indispensable thereto

c. can be convicted as co-principals by direct participation because their voluntary presence lent moral aid to the commission of crime

d. cannot be convicted as co-principals, absent proof of inducement, for lack of actual participation nor indispensable cooperation therein

c. can be convicted as co-principals by direct participation because their voluntary presence lent moral aid to the commission of crime

In case of accident under Article 12(4), Revised Penal Code --

---

a. a crime is committed but there is no criminal liability incurred

b. there is neither criminal nor civil liability incurred

c. there is civil liability despite the absence of crime

d. there is no criminal liability incurred but there is civil liability

b. there is neither criminal nor civil liability incurred

The mother of a thief who helped the latter in selling stolen goods is –

---

a. is liable as an accessory-after-the-fact if she acted with knowledge of the stolen character of the goods and is not exempt from criminal liability as such despite her relationship to the principal of the crime

b. is liable as an accessory-after-the-fact if she acted with knowledge of the stolen character of the goods, but is exempt from criminal liability in view of her relationship to the principal of the crime

c. is a fence and, therefore, guilty under the Anti-Fencing Law

d. always exempt from criminal liability as an accessory-after-the-fact by reason of her relationship to the principal of the crime

a. is liable as an accessory-after-the-fact if she acted with knowledge of the stolen character of the goods and is not exempt from criminal liability as such despite her relationship to the principal of the crime

Pardon differs from parole in that –

A pardon by the Chief Executive shall not work the restoration of the right to hold public office or the right of suffrage, unless expressly remitted in the pardon, nor shall in no case exempt the culprit from the payment of the civil indemnity. However, a pardon by the offended party shall not exempt him from criminal liability. Thus only absolving the accused from civil liability as provided for under Article 23.

A parole is a conditional release upon the service of part of a sentence. It is the suspension of the sentence of a convict after serving the minimum term of the indeterminate penalty without being granted pardon, prescribing the terms upon which the sentence shall be suspended.

On the question of insanity as a defense in criminal cases, and the incidental  corollaries as to the legal presumption and the kind and quantum of evidence  required, theories abound and authorities are in sharp conflict. In the Philippines,  what theory applies relative to the defense of insanity?

Under Art. 12(1) of the Revised Penal Code, there are three elements to the defense of insanity: (1) complete deprivation of reason, intelligence, or discernment and (2) the existence of such deprivation must be existent at the time of the commission of the crime. It is a confession and an avoidance such that the quantum of evidence is proof beyond reasonable doubt. When the quantum of evidence is not met, then conviction must follow.

Discuss justifying circumstances, and differentiate them from exempting circumstances. 

Justifying circumstances entail that the act commissioned was lawful; exempting circumstances entail that the act was unlawful but the actor is exempt from criminal liability. Under justifying circumstances, no criminal and civil liability arises therefrom; while criminal liability is absolved under exempting circumstances, the actor is still civilly liable. [People v. Pantoja]

What is the penalty for an impossible crime? 

Article 59 of the Revised Penal Code provides that the appropriate penalty is a fine of 200 to 500 pesos and arresto mayor.An impossible crime is defined under Article 4 of the RPC, which provides that it would have been an offense against persons or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the inadequate or ineffectual means.

Distinguish entrapment from instigation, indicating their respective legal  consequences from the standpoint of criminal liability.  

There is entrapment when law officers employ ruses and schemes to ensure the apprehension of the criminal while in the actual commission of the crime., while instigation is the inducement of a person to commit a crime. The difference is the origin of the criminal intent: entrapment merely facilitates the commission of the crime arising from an intent originating from the mind of the criminal, while instigation entails that the officer conceived the commission of the crime and suggests to the accused who adopts the idea and carries it into execution. [People v. Periodica]

Instigation leads to the acquittal of the accused, while entrapment does not bar prosecution and conviction.

What are the legal consequences, from the standpoint of criminal and/or civil liability, in case of accident under Article 12(4), Revised Penal Code?  

Article 12(4) of the Revised Penal Code provides for exemption from criminal liability on the grounds of accident. There are four elements: (1) the performance of a lawful act, (2) the exercise of due care, (3) causes an injury to another by mere accident, and (4) without fault or intent—neither culpa nor dolo. Unlike other exempting circumstances, civil liability does not arise from the act commissioned. 

What is an “ordinary complex crime”, what are its forms and how are  these penalized?  

Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code provides that an ordinary complex crime comes in two forms: compound and complex crime proper. A compound crime is constituted by a single act resulting in two or more grave or less grave felonies; a complex crime proper is when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other. The penalty imposable in ordinary complex crime is the penalty of the most serious crime in its maximum period. Since two felonies constitute a complex crime, jurisprudence provides that—between the imposition of imprisonment or fine—only the penalty of imprisonment should be imposed.

Differentiate, with appropriate examples, an “ordinary complex  crime” from a “delito continuado.“

On one hand, an example of an ordinary complex crime would be if a man threw a grenade into a crowd of people; this would result in the compound crime of multiple murders. For complex crime proper, an example would be the falsification of documents for the subsequent commission of estafa.

On the other hand, a delito continuado, or continuous crime, constitutes a series of acts all arising from one criminal resolution. An example of this would be the theft of 15 chickens from two different owners committed at the same time in the same place. The different acts all fall under a single criminal resolution of theft.

What is an “indeterminate sentence” and how is it arrived at?

The Indeterminate Sentence Law imposes an indeterminate sentence with a minimum and maximum terms set by law. An indeterminate sentence is one that favors the defendant by shortening their possible service of sentence depending on his behavior and mental moral record. The sentence is arrived at by (1) establishing the maximum term as the sentence imposed by the Revised Penal Code, in consideration of the attending circumstances, and (2) that the minimum term is one degree lower regardless of period. Therefore, a felony with an imposable penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period would have a maximum term of the same and a minimum term of prision mayor. 

Distinguish “parole” from “pardon” granted by the Chief Executive.  

In general, parole is a conditional release upon the service of part of a sentence. It is the suspension of the sentence of a convict  after serving the minimum term of the indeterminate penalty without being granted pardon, prescribing the terms upon which the sentence shall be suspended.

Meanwhile, a pardon is granted by the Chief Executive which exempts one convicted by final judgment from punishment of the law. However, a pardon does not extinguish civil liability nor grant full civil and political rights unless the grant explicitly provides it. Article 23 of the Revised Penal Code provides that the effect of a pardon by express waiver of the offended party extends only to the civil liability arising from the final judgment; it does not extinguish criminal liability.

Can an accused seek exemption from the payment of the civil  indemnity imposed upon her by a sentence on the basis of an absolute  pardon granted by the Chief Executive; why?  

No, the accused may not be exempted from the payment of civil indemnities on the grounds of an absolute pardon granted by the Chief Executive. Article 36 of the Revised Penal Code expressly provides that a pardon shall in no case exempt the culprit from the payment of the civil indemnity imposed upon him by the sentence. A pardon is limited to the extinguishing of criminal liability—not civil indemnity.

Distinguish the concepts of “imposition of penalties” from “service of  penalties”. 

The factors considered in the imposition of penalties are the nature, gravity, and number of the offenses charged and proven in relation to the penalties prescribed by law. Meanwhile, the service of sentence is determined by the severity and character of the penalty or penalties imposed. In the service of sentence, the most severe sentence is served first; such service is also subject to factors such as escape of the convict, grant of executive clemency, or natural death of the prisoner,  among others. The imposed penalty is not necessarily the same length as the one served.

What is the maximum duration of the convict's sentence where he has to serve two or more penalties of imprisonment?

Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code provides that the maximum duration of the convict’s sentence shall not be more than three-fold the length of the time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed upon him. Such maximum period shall in no case exceed forty years.

Who are entitled to probation?  

Section 8 of the Probation Law [PD No. 948, as amended by RA No. 10707] the Court shall consider the character, antecedents, environment, mental and physical condition of the offender, and the community resources. There are three exceptions: (1) the offender is in need of correctional treatment that can be best provided through commitment to an institution, (2) there is undue risk that the offender will commit another offense during the probation period, and (3) probation will depreciate the seriousness of the offense committed.

What is the effect of an appeal upon the availability of probation?

Section 4 of the Probation Law provides that the application for probation shall be deemed a waiver of the right to appeal, or the automatic withdrawal of a pending appeal. An order granting or denying probation shall not be appealable. An application for probation shall be filed with the trial court, with notice to the appellate court if an appeal has been taken from the sentence of conviction.

Two vehicles collided at an intersection. X, driver of the vehicle found to be at fault, was convicted of the crime of reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property. Y, the prevailing party, unable to collect civil indemnity from X, seeks to enforce the same against X’s employer. Under what conditions or circumstances can X’s employer be held subsidiarily liable for the payment of civil indemnity? 

X’s employer may be held subsidiarily liable if it is proven that the use of the vehicle was also used in X’s duties as an employee—not merely for his personal use. Article 103 of the RPC provides that employers engaged in any kind of industry may be held subsidiarily liable for the acts of his employee if any of their employee commits a felony in the discharge of his duties, and that the employee is insolvent and has not satisfied the civil liability.

NP received from JV several jewels. Some of the jewels were owned by JV and other belonged to strangers; all, however, came from JV and were delivered to NP to be sold on commission, with the express obligation on the part of the latter to pay to the former the proceeds of the sale of said jewels, or to return them if unsold. NP, however, far from complying with her duty, pawned the said jewels at various dates during said months, as appears from the pawn tickets issued by the owner of HF's pawnshop, where the jewels had been pledged. The jewels were thus misappropriated,  and the amount of the loan granted thereon embezzled, to the prejudice of JV. Under the circumstances, can JV recover the jewels from the pawnshop, regardless of whether the latter may have lawfully acquired the same from NP; why? 

Yes, JV can recover the said jewels from the pawnshop, even if the latter may have been lawfully acquired by the same. Article 105 of the Revised Penal Code provides that an object shall be restored to its original owner, even though it be found in the possession of a third person who has acquired it by lawful means. 

The deceased, C, coming upon V and L cleaning a caua said to them, "What of it if you throw away the water as I also can get water as easily as you can?" V, indignant at this allusion replied. "Do you want a fight? Wait there." Immediately proceeding to the house, V procured a revolver and returned to the field. A brother of V, M, attempted to gain possession of the revolver and was killed (probably accidentally) for his pains. Loading the revolver anew, V pointed it at C wounding him in the stomach. The wife of C tried to succor her husband, but the other brother, L, stopped her and attacked C with a bolo. C's nephew, U, was also wounded. Considering that C was wounded by a pistol fired by V, and it was a mortal wound, and C, almost immediately after receiving the pistol shot, was wounded with a bolo by L, this likewise being a mortal wound, and the death of C could only be attributed to "to the wounds", then can both V and L be convicted and held liable as co-conspirators in causing the death of C, particularly on the theory that when several persons act in concert, conspiracy is implied and the act of one is the act of all; why?

No. Although V and L are both liable for their individual acts, they cannot be attributed to conspiracy. According to Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code, conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. In this case, there is no common criminal design between V and L that would entail conspiracy, whether express or implied. 

The crime of falsification of a public document carries with it an imposable penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not more than P5,000.00 [Art. 172, Revised Penal Code (RPC)]. Being punishable by a correctional penalty, this crime prescribes in ten (10) years [Art. 90, par. 3 (RPC)]. Where a public document, allegedly falsified, was a notarized deed of sale registered on  May 26, 2000 with the Register of Deeds in the name of the accused, but the complaint affidavit before the Prosecutor’s Office for falsification of a public document was, however, filed only on October 18, 2011, one month after the victim actually came to know thereof. Can it be contended that the criminal action has not yet prescribed because the prescriptive period may only be considered to have started to run from the time the victim came to know thereof (date of actual discovery) and will only be interrupted upon the filing by of the Information in court; why?

No, the crime of falsification has prescribed. According to the Revised Penal Code, the prescription of the crime of falsification of public documents starts when the document is registered in the Registry of Deeds.

What would be the criminal liability of a Barangay Captain who, knowing the identity of persons who committed the crime of arson within his jurisdiction, merely remained silent about it (i.e., omitting to prosecute them); why?

Finding basis in Article 208 of the Revised Penal Code, the criminal liability of the Barangay Captain is dereliction of duty and not merely concealment of a crime. As a public officer, it is his duty to report such acts, and failing to report constitutes a delay in the apprehension of the suspect. The penalty shall be that of prision correccional and suspension.

X, a detention prisoner on a charge of simple estafa and who is not otherwise a recidivist or a habitual delinquent, refused to abide by the rules and regulations prescribed for convicted prisoners serving sentence in the institution in  which he is detained. Should he be convicted of the offense he is charged with, would he be entitled to credit for time spent in preventive detention; why?

According to Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, he is entitled to credit equivalent to 4/5ths of the time spent during his preventive imprisonment. 

 X, a former Treasurer of a municipality, malversed public funds, which were carried out of the country by his wife, Y, and deposited by her in another country. Under the circumstances, can it be held that Y, assuming she knew the source of the funds but had no participation whatsoever in the commission of malversation, would be held an accessory-after-the fact under Art. 19, RPC, but exempt, as such, from criminal liability under Art. 20 thereof; why?

Yes, Y would be liable as an accessory-after-the-fact of the crime under Article 19 of the RPC. Although Y falls under the exception to criminal liability under Article 20 as the spouse of X, she may still be held liable as the exception to such rule as Y profited herself or assisted the offender to profit by the effects of the crime. 

She falls under the contemplation of Article 19, as a person (1) having knowledge of the commission of the crime and (2) without having participated therein, either as principals or accomplices, (3) took part in a manner profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime.

The prosecution seeks to hold four of the accused, XM, XN, ZS, and US,  criminally liable for the killing of 120 journalists in an ambuscade on their way to a  provincial office of the COMELEC, particularly as co-authors thereof by inducement,  considering that they attended the conferences and entered no opposition to the  nefarious scheme while it was being discussed among the conspirators and, after the  commission of the murders, they joined with the other accused in celebrating with a  fiesta, although aside from this, these four did not cooperate in the commission of the  crimes, nor is it certain that, as relatives or retainers of XA, who is alleged to have  conceived of the plan thus implemented, the four had any influence over XS and YS,  who executed the plan, nor that any of the four said or did anything that determined  the commission of the crimes. Can they be considered as co-authors of said crimes  within the meaning of article [17] of the [Revised] Penal Code; why?

No, although the acts of XM, XN, ZS, and US are considered to be a conspiracy. Such conspiracy is not punishable under Article 17 of the Revised Penal Code since they did not (1) take direct part in the execution of the act, (2) directly force or induce others to commit it, nor (2) cooperated in the commission of the offense by another act without which it would not have been accomplished.

A wife who prepared the way for the perpetration of a crime of rape  committed by her husband upon a 12-year old victim, by conducting her by force and  violence to a place apart among the trees, where she called to her husband, the person  chiefly interested in perpetrating the crime, delivering the victim to her husband and  then going away from the scene of the crime so that her husband might freely consummate the pre-arranged rape, as the latter did with violence and intimidation.  What is the degree of criminal responsibility of the wife, if any; why?

The degree of criminal responsibility of the wife in the commission of the crime is principal in nature. Article 17 provides principals are those who (1) take direct part in the execution of the act, (2) directly force or induce others to commit it, or (3) cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act without which it would not have been accomplished. In this case, the wife was a principle under Article 17(3) of indispensable cooperation. Her actions of forcing the 12-year-old victim to the trees and delivering the victim to her husband constitutes indispensable cooperation to the commission of the crime.

FC was employed by RP, an army officer, to get a girl, AM, and her aunt,  VE, into the army barracks, where RP was. RP spoke English and could neither speak nor understand the native language. FC acted as interpreter, translating English to the native language, to make the woman and the girl understand RP's desire that AM remain with him as his querida or paramour. FC, accompanied by several privates, at RP's order,  arrested FB and took him to the barracks to be then turned over to VF who, obeying orders from the same lieutenant, which orders were translated by FC in order that it  may be understood by VF, proceeded to kill the prisoner in or near the cemetery of the said town, by shooting him. Can FC be held liable for participating in the killing of FB; why?

No. Article 11(6) provides that any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose do not incur criminal liability. FC’s role as an interpreter was an order from his superior, therefore he is not criminally liable.