2026 Criminal Law, Q17

Marvin, together with Calvin, planned a heist at an electric car store. Marvin and Calvin attempted to forcefully enter the store but the security guard, Gomez, barred them from entering. Thus, Calvin shot Gomez on the chest, who died on the spot. Marvin and Calvin then entered the store and demanded the store clerk, Gina, to give them the key to the electric car on display. Gina hesitantly gave the key. Despite complying, Marvin still shot Gina in the head, which led to her immediate demise. Upon getting the key and starting the electric car, Marvin drove it, while Calvin escaped on foot. After one day, Marvin became paranoid that Calvin might confess to the police about the crime they had just committed. Thus, Marvin shot Calvin in the chest, which led to the latter’s death. What crime/s did Marvin commit, if any? Explain.

Quick check

Why are the killings of security guard Gomez and store clerk Gina absorbed into the crime of Qualified Carnapping under Republic Act No. 10883?

Why is Marvin's killing of Calvin considered a separate crime of Murder rather than part of the Qualified Carnapping?

What qualifying circumstance elevates Marvin's act of shooting Calvin a day later to Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code?

What crimes should Marvin be criminally charged with for his overall acts?

Choices available with full access.

Under Republic Act No. 10883, what specific circumstance qualifies the crime of carnapping?

Choices available with full access.

Unlock the full Criminal Law answers

Learn more about these topics

1. Carnapping
Under Republic Act No. 10883, carnapping is the taking of a motor vehicle with intent to gain by means of violence or intimidation. When the owner, driver, or any occupant is killed in the course or on the occasion of the carnapping, the offense becomes qualified carnapping. The law treats the unlawful taking and the accompanying killing as a single, indivisible composite crime. Consequently, shooting security personnel or store employees during the taking of a vehicle constitutes qualified carnapping rather than separate property and personal crimes.

2. Murder
Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, a killing constitutes murder when attended by qualifying circumstances such as evident premeditation. Evident premeditation requires proof of the time when the offender determined to commit the crime, an overt act indicating adherence to that determination, and a lapse of time allowing cool thought and reflection upon the consequences. When an offender plans and executes a killing after a substantial interval—such as shooting a co-conspirator a day later out of paranoia—the deliberate reflection satisfies evident premeditation, elevating the killing to murder.

3. Subsequent Separate Felony
Under Philippine criminal law, a subsequent criminal act committed after the consummation of an initial felony constitutes a distinct, separate crime if it lacks a direct causal connection to the original offense. While killings committed during or on the occasion of an unlawful taking form part of a composite felony, a killing executed long after as an independent afterthought is not absorbed. When an offender kills an accomplice a day later to prevent a police confession, the subsequent killing is treated as a separate crime of murder requiring independent prosecution.

About these questions and answers
The questions reproduced here are the official texts of the Philippine Bar Examinations, published by the Supreme Court. They are reproduced for study purposes.The suggested answers are the author’s own.

They are not official answers, have no connection with the Supreme Court, the Office of the Bar Confidant, or any bar review institution, and are not endorsed by any of them. Official answer keys, where released, should be preferred over anything here.Nothing on this page is legal advice, and reading it creates no lawyer-client relationship. Do not rely on any suggested answer in an actual legal matter. Consult counsel on your own facts.Suggested answers reflect the law and jurisprudence the author considers applicable as of the date shown.

Where a question comes from an earlier examination, the suggested answer applies the law as it now stands, which may differ from the law in force when the question was given, and may therefore differ from what would have been the correct answer at that time. Where the difference is material, the answer notes it.The practice scoring feature measures wording overlap with the suggested answer. It is not a grade, carries no official weight, and says nothing about whether your reasoning is sound.Errors are possible. If you find one, please tell me and I will correct it.Last reviewed: October 2026