A contracted B to kill his sworn enemy, X, and gave P1,000,000 as consideration for B's services. However, before B could perform, A had a change of heart and demanded the return of the money. Decide which statement is correct.

A contracted B to kill his sworn enemy, X, and gave P1,000,000 as consideration for B's services. However, before B could perform, A had a change of heart and demanded the return of the money. Decide which statement is correct.

• A. A cannot recover the payment he made to B because it was void contract which does not allow recovery by the guilty party.
• B. A cannot recover the money because the contract is unenforceable.
• C. Both are in pari delicto where there can be no recovery and both A and B will be prosecuted for their crime.
• D. A can recover the money although the contract is void since the crime was not committed.

Answer: (D)

The situation tests restitution in an illegal contract. When two people enter into a contract to commit a crime, the agreement is void from the start and generally neither party can enforce it. But public policy also discourages allowing the offender to profit from the blocked crime. If the intended crime is never carried out, the innocent payer should not lose money to the other party simply because the plan fell through. Restoring the money prevents unjust enrichment and aligns with the idea that the effect of the illegal act never materialized. Here, A hired B to murder X and paid a substantial sum. Before any act occurred, A withdrew and seeks the money back. Because the crime was not committed, there is no basis to let B keep the payment, and A is entitled to recover. If the crime had actually been carried out, the analysis would be different, but with no performance, recovery is allowed to avoid rewarding the unperformed illegal plan.

The situation tests restitution in an illegal contract. When two people enter into a contract to commit a crime, the agreement is void from the start and generally neither party can enforce it. But public policy also discourages allowing the offender to profit from the blocked crime. If the intended crime is never carried out, the innocent payer should not lose money to the other party simply because the plan fell through. Restoring the money prevents unjust enrichment and aligns with the idea that the effect of the illegal act never materialized.

Here, A hired B to murder X and paid a substantial sum. Before any act occurred, A withdrew and seeks the money back. Because the crime was not committed, there is no basis to let B keep the payment, and A is entitled to recover. If the crime had actually been carried out, the analysis would be different, but with no performance, recovery is allowed to avoid rewarding the unperformed illegal plan.