Res
Res
Res
Answer the following questions using the IRAC principle/structure. You may go to the library to
research the substantive aspects of the answers. Bear in mind that the IRAC structure must be
followed.
1. Aki and Ben, while walking together, met Caloy. There was an altercation between Ben
and Caloy so that Ben chased and stabbed Caloy with a knife hitting his right arm thereby
causing slight physical injury. Ben desisted from further assaulting Caloy, but Aki lunged
at Caloy and felled him this time with a bolo which mortally wounded Caloy. Thus, he
died. a) What is the criminal liability of Aki? How about that of Ben? Explain your answers.
IRAC Answer
Under the law, article 248, Sec. 1 of RPC provides that “any person who, not falling
within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall
be punished by reclusion Perpetua to death, if committed with the attendant circumstance
of treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or
employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford
impunity.”
In the case at bar, Aki employed treachery, taking advantage of his superior strength
with the use of bolo and with the aid of armed men (Ben).
Based on the facts and law, Aki is liable for murder.
Under the Revised Penal Code, the elements of less serious physical injuries are that
the offended party is incapacitated for labor for 10 days or more (but not more than 30
days), or needs medical attendance for the same period of time and that the physical injuries
must not be those described in the preceding articles.
In the aforementioned case, Ben chased and stabbed Caloy with a knife hitting his right
arm thereby causing slight physical injury.
Based on law and facts, it can be deduced that Ben is liable for slight physical injuries.
2. Deeply enraged by his wife’s infidelity, the husband shot and killed her lover. The husband
subsequently surrendered to the police. How will the court appreciate the mitigating
circumstances of (i) passion or obfuscation, (ii) vindication of a grave offense, and (iii)
voluntary surrender that the husband invoked and proved? Explain your answers.
IRAC Answer
IRAC ESSAY:
Whether or not the husband can invoke the mitigating circumstances of passion or
obfuscation, vindication of a grave offense, and voluntary surrender.
Article 13, paragraph 6, Revised Penal Code states that, those of having acted upon an
impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation.
Article 13, paragraph 7, Revised Penal Code: That the offender had voluntarily
surrendered himself to a person in authority or his agents, or that he had voluntarily confessed
his guilt before the court prior to the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution.
In the case at bar, the killing, arose from lawful sentiments and not from a spirit of
lawlessness or revenge. And the voluntary surrender of the husband entitles him of the mitigating
circumstances.
Based on law and facts, the husband can invoke the mitigating circumstances of passion or
obfuscation, vindication of a grave offense, and voluntary surrender.
3. Isabel, a housemaid, broke into a pawnshop intent on stealing items of jewelry in it. She
found, however, that the jewelry were in a locked chest. Unable to open it, she took the
chest out of the shop. She was subsequently charged with the crime of Theft. Should the
case be dismissed? Explain your answer.
IRAC Answer
Elements of Theft:
1. There be taking of personal
property;
2. Said property belongs to another;
3. The taking be done with intent to
gain;
4. The taking be done without the
consent of the owner;
5. The taking be accomplished
without the use of violence against
or intimidation of persons or force
upon things.
Article 293, Revised Penal Code provides; Any person who, with intent to gain, shall
take any personal property belonging to another, by means of violence or intimidation of any
person, or using force upon anything shall be guilty of robbery.
In the case at bar, there is violence or force employed when Isabel broke into the store to
steal the jewelry thus will make Isabel liable for robbery and not theft. What distinguishes theft
from robbery is that in theft, the offender does not use violence or intimidation or does not enter
a house or building through any of the means specified in Article 299 or 302 in taking personal
property of another with intent to gain.
Therefore, based on law and facts, the crime of theft charged to Isabel should be
dismissed.
4. Zeno and Primo asked Bert to give them a sketch of the location of Andy’s house since
they wanted to kill him. Bert agreed and drew them the sketch. Zeno and Primo drove to
the place and killed Andy. What crime did Bert commit? Explain your answer.
IRAC Answer
IRAC ESSAY:
Whether or not Bert is liable for the crime of murder in the commission of crime as
principal by indispensable cooperation.
Its requisites are (1) participation of the subject accused in the criminal resolution and (2)
performance by him of another act indispensable to the accomplishment of the crime.
In the case at bar, Bert cooperated in the commission of the crime by drawing a
sketch of the location of Andy’s house, without which Andy would not have been killed.
Furthermore, People vs Dina Dulay y Pascual, G.R. No. 19385, September 24, 2012 the
court ruled that, to be a principal by indispensable cooperation, one must participate in the
criminal resolution, a conspiracy or unity in criminal purpose and cooperation in the
commission of the offense by performing another act without which it would not have been
accomplished.
Therefore, based on law and facts, Bert commit the crime of murder as principal by
indispensable cooperation.