normal_post - Difficult Bar Exam Question: Criminal Law Review - Philippine Laws Author Topic: Difficult Bar Exam Question: Criminal Law Review  (Read 1452 times)

MIKELIGALIG.com

  • FOUNDER
  • Webmaster
  • *****
  • avatar_1382_1499847132 - Difficult Bar Exam Question: Criminal Law Review - Philippine Laws
  • Posts: 25225
  • medal1 - Difficult Bar Exam Question: Criminal Law Review - Philippine Lawsmedal2 - Difficult Bar Exam Question: Criminal Law Review - Philippine Lawsmedal3 - Difficult Bar Exam Question: Criminal Law Review - Philippine Laws
  • NEED A WEBSITE? email me: info@mikeligalig.com
    • Share Post
xx - Difficult Bar Exam Question: Criminal Law Review - Philippine Laws
Difficult Bar Exam Question: Criminal Law Review
« on: December 18, 2009, 06:43:38 PM »
Jose employed Mario as gardener and Henry as cook. They learned that Jose won P500,000.00 in the lotto, and decided to rob him. Mario positioned himself about 30 meters away from Jose’s house and acted as lookout. For his part, Henry surreptitiously gained entry into the house and killed Jose who was then having his dinner. Henry found the P500,000.00 and took it. Henry then took a can of gasoline from the garage and burned the house to conceal the acts. Mario and Henry fled, but were arrested around 200 meters away from the house by alert barangay tanods. The tanods recovered the P500,000.00.

Mario and Henry were charged with and convicted of robbery with homicide, with the aggravating circumstances of arson, dwelling, and nighttime. Mario moved to reconsider the decision maintaining that he was not at the scene of the crime and was not aware that Henry killed the victim; hence, he was guilty only of robbery, as an accomplice. Mario also claimed that he conspired with Henry to commit robbery but not to kill Jose. Henry, likewise, moved to reconsider the decision, asserting that he is liable only for attempted robbery with homicide with no aggravating circumstance, considering that he and Mario did not benefit from the P500,000.00. He further alleged that arson is a felony and not an aggravating circumstance; dwelling is not aggravating in attempted robbery with homicide; and nighttime is not aggravating because the house of Jose was lighted at the time he was killed.

Resolve with reasons the respective motions of Mario and Henry. (7%)

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=24371.0
Romans 10:9-10
"If you declare with your mouth, Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved."

*SET UP YOUR OWN blog, business or personal website, or online store at www.wirenine.com




Share via facebook Share via linkedin Share via pinterest Share via reddit Share via tumblr Share via twitter

xx
Bar Exam Question Review: Criminal Law

Started by MIKELIGALIG.com on Philippine Laws

0 Replies
568 Views
Last post December 18, 2009, 06:45:02 PM
by MIKELIGALIG.com
xx
Criminal Law Review: Bar Exam Question

Started by MIKELIGALIG.com on Philippine Laws

0 Replies
597 Views
Last post December 18, 2009, 06:33:55 PM
by MIKELIGALIG.com
 

Sign-up or Log-in Free

 
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk
Powered by SMFPacks SEO Pro Mod | Sitemap
Mobile View
SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2020, SimplePortal