phBar.org (Bar Exams Forum-Philippines)

II.

While Carlos was approaching his car, he saw it being driven away by Paolo, a thief. Carlos tried to stop Paolo by shouting at him, but Paolo ignored him. To prevent his car from being carnapped, Carlos drew his gun, aimed at the rear wheel of the car and fired. The shot blew the tire which caused the car to veer out of control and collide with an oncoming tricycle, killing the tricycle driver.
a) What is the criminal liability of Carlos, if any? Explain. (4%)
b) What is the criminal liability of Paolo, if any? Explain. (4%)

Points to consider:

Re subquestion (a)

1. Is Carlos criminally liable for the death of the tricycle driver?
- May the principle el que es causa de la causa es la causa del mal causado be applied against him? In other words, is he the proximate cause of the tricycle driver's death?
- May he invoke the justifying circumstance of defense of property? Why or why not? If he may, was not there any negligence on his part considering the circumstances (his car was already in motion as it was being driven by Paolo and it was in a public highway/street)? Was there unlawful aggression against him and/or his property rights and, if there was, did he employ reasonably necessary means to prevent or repel it?

- If he is liable for the tricycle driver's death, will it exonerate Paolo from any liability for the said driver's death?

2. Is Carlos criminally liable for whatever physical injuries Paolo may have suffered as a result of the collision of his (Carlo's) car with the tricycle?
- - May he invoke the justifying circumstance of defense of property? Why or why not? If he may, was there any negligence on his part considering the circumstances (his car was already in motion as it was being driven by Paolo and it was in a public highway/street)?

Re subquestion (b)

1. Is Paolo liable for carnapping (violation of the Anti-Carnapping Law [RA 6539]) for taking Carlos' car or is he liable for theft or robbery of a motor vehicle under the Revised Penal Code?

2. Is Paolo liable for the death of the tricycle driver?
- May the principle el que es causa de la causa es la causa del mal causado be applied against him? In other words, is he the proximate cause of the tricycle driver's death?
- May he invoke the exempting circumstance of accident? Why or why not?
- May his act be covered by Article 4(a) of the Revised Penal Code (Art. 4. Criminal liability. — Criminal liability shall be incurred:
1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. x x x"
- Is he committing a felony when the car he was driving collided with the tricycle driver's death?
- If he may be held criminally liable for the tricycle driver's death, will his liability be concurrent with that of Carlos or will it negate any liability on Carlos' part in connection with the said driver's death?

Great points, Jon. However, I would appreciate it very much if you could provide a suggested answer so that we would have an idea how a person of your caliber attacks a bar question.

Meantime, here’s my proposed answer.

a) Carlos has no criminal liability for a simple reason that Carlos was not committing a felony when he caused the death of the tricycle driver. The rule is that a person is criminally liable if a wrongful act which is not intended is a consequence of his felonious act. It is obvious that Carlos’s shooting at the rear wheel of his car, which is the proximate cause of the killing of the tricycle driver, is not a felonious act as the law allows a person to use necessary force to retain what belongs to him.

b) The anti-carnapping law particularly deals with the theft and robbery of motor vehicles. Hence a motor vehicle is said to have been carnapped when it has been taken, with intent to gain, without the owner's consent, whether the taking was done with or without the use of force upon things. It is clear that Paolo has committed and is criminally liable for the crime of carnapping having taken, with intent to gain, the car of Carlos without the latter’s consent.

My actual bar answer is the opposite of Manresa's:

a)Carlos is criminally liable.Reason: proximate cause and the means he used to protect his property is out of proportion and unreasonable constituting imprudence.he is therefore liable for the consequences of his act.

b)Qualified theft, there being no force or violence employed in the taking of the motor vehicle.

Hello Josh! Long time no see. I hope you’re doing just fine.
Your answer seems OK. But in People v. Lobitania ( 2002) the Supreme Court held that the unlawful taking of motor vehicles is covered by the anti-carnapping law and not by the provisions on qualified theft or robbery.

I agree..

Thanks lito Pretty good and hoping for the best just like everyone here

A) the crime committed by Carlos was illegal discharge of firearm and he is likewise liable for the death of the tricycle driver. Because a person is criminally liable if a wrongful act which is not intended is a consequence of his felonious act.

B) Anti-carnapping law was violated.

i answered in a) no criminal liability. i used defense of property rights under Art. 11(1) RPC.

in b) i answered same as sir LB and culpa,i.e., carnapping. thin line distinction between qualified theft and carnapping: if the taking of the motor vehicle was unlawful from the very beginning, its carnapping. if the taking was lawful in the beginning, but became unlawful thereafter, its qualified theft. thus, since the asportation was unlawful from the very beginning, its carnapping.

Sir manresa and Dawnsaint_01, much as would love to contribute an answer, i ask your forbearance if i refrain from doing so... at least for the moment...

i have the same answers as ponente.

Ingat ka SIr Lito kay Jon E. Examiner yan..he he...O baka si Justice Tinga yan...nagtatago lang muna "sa likod ng Camera".

Ditto that! There's much depth into his theses, one which can only come from a legal luminary of some sort.

Noted, Jon!