I

The qualifying/aggravating circumstance that were erroneously appreciated are as

follows:

1. Disregard of sex, because the offender would have committed the crime successfully
regardless of the sex of the offended party.
2. Abuse of Public position, because the offender is not on his official capacity when he
committed the crime. His absence without official leave is immaterial since the public
position of the offender was not used to facilitate the commission of the crime.
 II
a)

No, Ganda is not liable for perjury.

Under the Revised Penal Code, perjury is committed when the following elements are
present:

1. The accused made a statement under oath

2. The statement was made before a competent officer authorized to administer oath
3. The accused made a willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood
4. The sworn statement is required by law or for a legal purpose

All the foregoing elements are present in this case except that the sworn statement is not
required by law or for a legal purpose. Ganda has no legal obligation to admit her indebtedness
to Pokwang. Such issue of indebtedness can be properly resolved in the trial by presentation of
evidence.

Hence, Ganda should not be liable for perjury for denying the existence of the debt.

b)

Yes, Guapo is liable for perjury.

Under the Revised Penal Code, for an accused to be liable for perjury, the sworn
statement containing the falsity must be required by law or for a legal purpose.

Here, Guapo is required by the law on

 III
1)

Agnes and Mary may be held liable for impossible crime.

Under, Art. 4 par. 2 of the Revised Penal Code, an impossible crime is committed
when the accomplishment of an unlawful act is inherently impossible or the means
employed are inadequate or ineffectual. The Supreme Court held that there is physical
impossibility when due to extraneous circumstances unknown to the accused, the crime
could not have possibly committed.

In this case, Agnes and Mary believed that they could have accomplished the
intended crime had it not for the absence of the intended victims at their house which is
an extraneous circumstance unknown to the accused.

Thus, since there is physical impossibility to commit the crime, both of the
accused are liable for impossible crime.

2)

Yes, Agnes has criminal liability for the death of Mary.

Under par. 1 of Art. 4 of Revised Penal Code, the accused shall be liable for the
direct, logical and natural consequences of his unlawful act although it be different from
what he intended. The Supreme Court held that, Aberatio ictus or mistake in blow is
committed when the accused directed the blow at an intended victim but landed on
somebody else.

In the case at bar, the death of Mary is the direct, natural and logical consequence
of the felony committed by Agnes in firing the gun against the house of her intended
victim. Agnes should be liable for the death of Mary, although it be different from what
she intended.

Hence, Agnes should be held liable for homicide.

 IV

Yes, band is attendant to the commission of the crime.

Under the Revised Penal Code, the aggravating circumstance of by band requires more
than three people, that is, at least four malefactors acting together in the commission of the
offense. The Supreme Court held that band members must be all principals.

In the given case, the crime was committed by band because there are four malefactors
acting in conspiracy. The participation of Brando in staying in his car as a look out and assisting
their escape are acts showing his community of interest with the other three malefactors. Hence,
in conspiracy the act of one is the act of all. All the conspirators are liable as prinicipals
regardless of the extent and character of their participation.

Therefore, the aggravating circumstance of by band attendanded the commission of the

crime.
 V

Yes, the criminal complaint will prosper.

Under the Revised Penal Code, libel is defined as a public and malicious imputation of
an act or condition to another that tends to cause discredit or cause the dishonor or contempt of a
natural or juridical person or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.

As such, libel may be committed to blacken the memory of one who is dead. Thus, the
death of Roy is immaterial in the prosecution for libel because his heirs, as offended parties, can
validly file it.

Therefore, the criminal complaint for libel will prosper.

 VI

Pedro may be held liable for frustrated homicide for the injury of Juan and serious or less
serious physical injuries for the injury of John.

Under the Revised Penal Code, a frustrated felony is committed when the offender
already performed all the acts of execution which would produce the felony but which
nevertheless does not produce it by reason of causes independent of his will. The Supreme Court
held that in cases of homicide or murder, all the acts of execution are considered performed
when the offender already inflicted a fatal or mortal wound.

In this case, the injury of Juan was proven to be fatal because he would have died had it
not for the medical attention.

Hence, the crime would be frustrated homicide.

On the other hand, as to the injury of John, since there was no fatal wound inflicted on
him, it cannot be considered at frustrated stage of homicide. Neither can it be attempted
homicide, because the offender desist from further performing acts of execution by his own
spontaneous desistance.

Hence, he can only be liable for serious or less serious physical injuries for the injury
sustained by John.
 VII

It depends, the first charge for grave coercion for the cutting of electric lines is
unmeritorious while the second charge for posting body guards to prevent entry of the Lessee is
meritorious.

Under the Revised Penal Code, grave coercion is committed by any person who inflicts
violence or by means of threats or intimidation prevent another from doing something not
prohibited by law or to compel him to do something against his will, be it right or wrong.

In the first charge, the act of the Lessor in cutting off the electric lines do not constitute
grave coercion because it may be done without compelling or preventing the offended party to
do or not to do an act. Moreover, such act is not prohibited by law because there is a contract
between the parties authorizing her to do the same and it is not against public policy.

Hence, the first charge for grave coercion is without merit.

While in the second charge for grave coercion, the act of the Lessor of putting body
guards outside the building to prevent entry of the Lessee is considered employing intimidation
against the Lessee in order to prevent him from doing an act not prohibited by law. The lessee
may be legally oust from the property through demand letters and proper charges for ejectment.

Hence, the second charge for grave coercion is meritorious.

 VIII

The criminal complaint for Qualified Theft filed by M&M will prosper.