A had a grudge against F. Deciding to kill F, A and his friends, B, C, and D, armed themselves with knives and proceeded to the house of F, taking a taxicab for the purpose. About 20 meters from their destination, the group alighted and after instructing E, the driver, to wait,traveled on foot to the house of F. B positioned himself at a distance as the group's lookout. C and D stood guard outside the house. Before A could enter the house, D left the scene without the knowledge of the others. A stealthily entered the house and stabbed F. F ran to thestreet but was blocked by C, forcing him to flee towards another direction. Immediately after A had stabbed F, A also stabbed G who was visiting F. Thereafter, A exiled from the house and, together with B and C, returned to the waiting taxicab and motored away.G died. F survived.Who are liable for the death of G and the physicalinjuries of F?

The accused lived with his family in a neighborhood thatoften was the scene of frequent robberies. At one time,past midnight, the accused went downstairs with a loadedgun to investigate what he thought were footsteps of anuninvited guest. After seeing what appeared to him anarmed stranger looking around and out to rob the house,he fired his gun seriously injuring the man. When thelights were turned on, the unfortunate victim turned outto be a brother-in-law on his way to the kitchen to getsome light snacks. The accused was indicted for seriousphysical injuries. Should the accused, given thecircumstances, be convicted or acquitted? Why?

Mr. Carlos Gabisi, a customs guard, and Mr. Rico Yto, aprivate Individual, went to the office of Mr. DietherOcuarto, a customs broker, and represented themselvesas agents of Moonglow Commercial Trading, anImporter of children's clothes and toys. Mr. Gabisi andMr. Yto engaged Mr. Ocuarto to prepare and file withthe Bureau of Customs the necessary Import Entry andInternal Revenue Declaration covering Moonglow'sshipment. Mr. Gabisi and Mr. Yto submitted to Mr.Ocuarto a packing list, a commercial invoice, a bill oflading and a Sworn Import Duty Declaration whichdeclared the shipment as children's toys, the taxes andduties of which were computed at P60,000.00. Mr.Ocuarto filed the aforementioned documents with theManila International Container Port. However, beforethe shipment was released, a spot check was conductedby Customs Senior Agent James Bandido, whodiscovered that the contents of the van (shipment) werenot children's toys as declared in the shipping documentsbut 1,000 units of video cassette recorders with taxes andduties computed at P600,000.00. A hold order and

warrant of seizure and detention were then issued by theDistrict Collector of Customs. Further investigationshowed that Moonglow is non-existent. Consequently,Mr. Gabisi and Mr. Yto were charged with and convictedfor violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 which makes itunlawful among others, for public officers to cause anyundue Injury to any party, including the Government. Inthe discharge of official functions through manifestpartiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusablenegligence. In their motion for reconsideration, theaccused alleged that the decision was erroneous becausethe crime was not consummated but was only at anattempted stage, and that in fact the Government did notsuffer any undue injury.a) Is the contention of both accused correct? Explain.(3%)b) Assuming that the attempted or frustrated stage ofthe violation charged is not punishable, may the accusedbe nevertheless convicted for an offense punished by theRevised Penal Code under the facts of the case? Explain.(3%)