I.

Andy Andrews, a chef, lives together with his common-law wife, Anna. One day, Andy comes home
sick from work, only to see Anna in bed having sex with their Swedish neighbor, Bjorn.
Shocked, Andy reaches for his chef’s knife and stabs both Anna and Bjorn. After being arrested, Andy
is charged with parricide.
a. What penalty do you impose? State your reasons(5 pts)
b. What mitigating circumstances, if any, would you apply? Explain. (5 pts.)
 II.
14-year old Charles has Christmas dinner with the family of his niece, 11-year old Didi. One night,
Charles asks Didi if she wants to try having sex. Didi asks Charles if what they were doing was right.
Charles said that maybe it wasn’t, but he didn’t care.
Charles and Didi were then caught in the act by Edith, Didi’s mother. She then filed a case for qualified
rape against Charles, the penalty for which is the death penalty under the law.
Charles is charged with qualified rape, with no mitigating or aggravating circumstances.
At trial 2 years later, Charles raises the defense of minority. However, the prosecution counters that,
as Charles is already 18, he can already be tried as an adult.
a. Is Charles liable for qualified rape? Explain fully, taking into consideration Charles’
age and his intention (5 pts.)
b. Assuming Charles is convicted of qualified rape, what would be the proper penalty
applicable? (5. pts.)
c. Assuming Charles is convicted of qualified rape, how would his sentence be executed?
Exhaust all options under the law. (5 pts.)
 III.
Facundo is a lawyer. Unable to keep up with work, one of his clients, Gino, recommends that he try
using metamphetamines, also known as shabu. Desperately behind on work, Facundo agrees.
Gino thus brings Facundo to a street corner, where Henry is sitting. Gino approaches Henry and says
Facundo needs shabu. Henry reveals himself to be a drug dealer, and hands Facundo a packet with a
white powder in it. Facundo then hands Henry a 100 peso bill.
Suddenly, Gino handcuffs Facundo and Henry. He reveals himself to be a PDEA agent who had been
looking to arrest Henry for 2 years. After complying with all the provisions of chain of custody,
Facundo is charged with possession of dangerous drugs, while Henry is charged with sale of dangerous
drugs.
a. Can Facundo be held liable for possession of dangerous drugs? Why or why not? (5
points)
b. Can Henry be held liable for possession of dangerous drugs? Is his situation the same
as Facundo’s? Explain fully. (5 pts)
 IV.
Rival gangs, the Clouds and the Briffs, are engaging in a gang war.
In an attempt to end the war once and for all, the leader of the Clouds, Fluffy Domes, devises a plan
to kill the head of the Briffs, Huge Rook, as follows:
1. A select squad of 5 armed assassins would be used;
2. The squad would strike while Huge was asleep;
3. In order to accomplish no. 2, the assassins would wait at Huge’s house until the latter is asleep.
Chief Enforcer of the Clouds, the Infamous GIG, is given the plan, and the discretion to choose his
crew.
Three weeks later, after intense surveillance, it is decided to take out the hit on Huge. A low-level
Cloud, Marshall, is chosen to act as lookout.
The plan succeeds, and Huge is shot in the head while he is asleep in his bed.
Using the cover of night, the assassins slip away under cover of darkness
a. Which qualifying and aggravating circumstances can be attributed to the Infamous GIG?
(5pts.)
b. At trial, Marshall claims that he is a mere accomplice, as he was only a lookout. Is he
correct? Explain fully. (5 pts)
 V.
At Bilibid prison, a fight breaks out in the cafeteria. In the scuffle, Convicted murderer Isaac stabs
convicted thief James. James later dies.
Isaac then escapes from prison. On the outside, James’ partner in crime, Kenneth, takes his revenge
on Isaac by beating Isaac within an inch of his life, in order to teach him a lesson without killing him.
Isaac is then captured and charged with the homicide of James.
Kenneth is likewise arrested. Upon checking his criminal record, it is revealed that Kenneth has already
served 2 sentences for theft.
a. Suppose Isaac is found guilty of homicide. Upon these circumstances, how would the
penalty for homicide be modified? (2.5 pts.)
b. Would your answer to (a) be the same if, instead of killing James in Bilibid prison, the
killing happened while both men were not serving any sentence? (2.5 pts)
c. Suppose James is found guilty of physical injuries. How would his sentence be
modified under these circumstances? (2.5 points)
d. Would your answer to (c) be the same if, instead of seriously injuring Isaac, James
was found guilty of frustrated homicide? (2.5 points)
 VI.
Lawrence just turned 18. At a party, Lawrence drinks his first beer, and gets wildly drunk. In his
drunken stupor, he stands up to his childhood bully Mark, and hits the latter on the head with a
baseball bat. The latter is admitted to the hospital for his injuries.
Upon interview, Lawrence’s friend, Nestor, states that Lawrence admitted to him that he would never
be able to stand up to Mark unless he drank to give himself courage.
Lawrence is later charged with serious physical injuries, aggravated by intoxication.
a. You are Lawrence’s lawyer. What would you argue against the aggravating
circumstance of intoxication? (2.5 points)
b. If, however, you were the prosecutor, how would you argue in favor of the aggravating
circumstance of intoxication? (2.5 points)
 VII.
Oliver is a pickpocket. As part of his modus operandi, upon snatching a wallet or a cellphone, Oliver
hands the stolen goods immediately to his brother, Paul, who then sells the goods at a street stall.
One day, Quentin passes by Paul’s store and buys an Ophone 13, which Paul tells him is “slightly
used,” at half-price.
The owner of the Ophone uses the “find my device” function, and leads police to Quentin, who
explains the circumstances.
a. Can Paul be held liable as an accessory? Why or why not? (5 pts.)
b. What offense and degree of participation is Quentin liable for, if any? Explain. (5
pts.)
 VIII.
Roger is the butt of all jokes at his office. One day, he is informed that he would be redundiated and
decides to have his revenge. He thus writes a note stating that he wants to kill as many people as
possible and is intent on doing it.
Thus, Roger brings an unlicensed firearm to work and shoots at all the co-workers who made fun of
him.
In all, he gravely wounds 3 co-workers, who only survive due to timely medical treatment.
Furthermore, 10 other co-workers are slightly injured.
At trial, Roger is charged with 3 counts of frustrated murder, and 10 counts of attempted murder,
qualified by evident premeditation.
Roger, however, pleads guilty to all the charges.
You are the judge.
a. What aggravating and mitigating circumstances are applicable? (5pts.)
b. From the foregoing circumstances, what penalty would you impose on Roger for
each of the charges? Explain fully. (10 points)
c. Notwithstanding your answer to question (b), how many years would Roger
actually serve in prison? Explain fully. (5 points)
 IX.
Jeffrey, abducts, rapes, and murders a man he met online, Tony. In order to conceal the crime, he
seals Tony’s body in a blue barrel and buries it at a construction site in the early hours of 20 December
2022.
Unbeknownst to Jeffrey, a police officer witnesses Jeffrey burying the body on that same day.
However, in fear of reprisal, he never reports what he saw. A building is thereafter built on top of the
burial site.
25 years later, on 21 December 2047, the building’s pipes are refitted. A maintenance working notices
a strange smell coming from the basement of the building. Upon digging around, a blue barrel is found
which is emitting a foul smell. The barrel is excavated, and Tony’s body is found. The police are called,
and a thorough investigation is conducted.
After a manhunt, Jeffrey is arrested and charged with Tony’s murder.
Has the offense prescribed? Why or why not? (5 points)
 X.
Sam is the CEO of STX, a company which engages in multilevel marketing, where investors are invited
and are given the resources to sell cosmetics. Investors are rewarded for recruiting further investors.
Thousands of investors join the company.
Even from the beginning, Sam intended to accumulate P100 million before absconding with the
money. On 21 January 2022, Sam absconds with the money and runs to the Cayman Islands.
However, Sam eventually returns to the Philippines on 16 February 2030. He is arrested and charged
with syndicated estafa, an offense that carries with it the penalty of life imprisonment to death. He is
held in preventive detention without bail.
Sam is convicted after trial, and is sentenced to life imprisonment on 17 January 2035. However, on
the way back to jail, Sam’s most loyal employees stop the police van he is riding and break him out of
police custody. He is then spirited away to Hong Kong, a territory with which the Philippines has an
extradition treaty.
30 years later, as he is already 65 years old, Sam expresses his wish to spend the remainder of his life
in the Philippines. Upon arrival at NAIA, Sam is arrested and taken into custody to serve his sentence.
Sam, however, claims that the penalty has already prescribed.
Is Sam correct? Why or why not? (5 pts).