1L_Criminal Law 1 Flashcards
(80 cards)
1
Q
What is Criminal Law?
A
Criminal law is that branch of law which defines crimes, treats of their nature, and provides for their punishment.
2
Q
What is crime?
A
Crime is an act committed or omitted in violation of public law forbidding or commanding it.
3
Q
What are the different sources of Philippine penal laws?
A
(1) Revised Penal Code
(2) Special Penal Law
(3) Penal Presidential Decree (issued during martial law)
4
Q
Is there a common law crimes in the Philippines?
A
The Philippines does not recognize common law crimes. Criminal liability is only incurred if there is a specific provision in the penal code or special law defining and punishing the act.
5
Q
What are the limitations on the power of Congress to enact penal laws?
A
- Due Process: No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
- Equal Protection: All persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike.
- Deb Imprisonment: No person shall be imprisoned for debt.
- Excessive Fines and Cruel and Unusual Punishment: Excessive fines, cruel, degrading, or inhuman punishment are prohibited. The death penalty can only be imposed for heinous crimes, as determined by Congress.
- Ex Post Facto Law: Congress cannot pass retroactive penal laws that are prejudicial to the accused.
- Bill of Attainder: A legislative act inflicting punishment without a judicial trial is prohibited.
6
Q
What is the definition of Ex Post Facto Laws?
A
Laws that retroactively criminalize acts or increase the severity of punishments for acts already committed.
7
Q
What is Bill of Attainder?
A
A bill of attainder is a legislative act that punishes an individual or group without the benefit of a judicial trial, and it is unconstitutional.
8
Q
Characteristics of Philippine Criminal Law
A
(1) Generality - Philippine penal laws are binding upon all persons who live or sojourn within the Philippine territory; exception: subject to public international law and treaty stipulations. (Article 14 of NCC)
(2) Territoriality - Philippine penal laws undertake to punish crimes committed within the Philippine territory; exceptions: stated in Article 2 of RPC.
(3) Prospectivity - Penal laws do not have retroactive effect; exception: unless they are favorable to the accused; exception to exception: not a habitual criminal and if expressly mentioned in a law that is not applicable. (Article 21 of RPC)
9
Q
Construction of Penal Laws
A
(1) Penal or criminal laws are strictly construed against the state and liberally in favor of the accused.
(2) The law is tender in favor of the rights of an individual. It is in this philosophy of caution before the State may deprive a person of life or liberty that reflects the fundamental principles in our Bill of Rights – that every person is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt (constitutional guarantee).
10
Q
In dubio pro reo
A
The fundamental principle in applying and in interpreting the criminal laws is to resolve all doubts in favor of the accused.
11
Q
Lex prospicit, non respicit
A
The law looks forward, never backward.
12
Q
Article 2 of the RPC
A
Except as provided in the treaties and law of preferential application, the provisions of this Code shall be enforced not only within the Philippine Archipelago, including its atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone, but also outside of its jurisdiction, against those who:
(1) Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship;
(2) Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine Islands or obligations and securities issued by the Government of the Philippine Islands;
(3) Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these islands of the obligations and securities mentioned in the preceding number;
(4) While being public officers or employees, should commit an offence in the exercise of their functions; or
(5) Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations.
13
Q
Article 3 of the RPC
A
Article 3 – Definitions. – Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies (delitos). Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit (dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa). There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent; and there is fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.
14
Q
Proof required to secure conviction
A
Every criminal conviction requires the prosecution to prove two (2) things:
(1) the fact of the crime (i.e. presence of all the elements of crime)
(2) the fact that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime
15
Q
Motive v. Intent
A
Motive - the moving power which impels one to action for a definite result (not an element of a crime)
Intent - the purpose to use a particular means to effect a definite result (an element of a crime)
16
Q
Motive Need Not be Proved; Exceptions
A
- Motive pertains to the reason which prompts the accused to engage criminal activity. It is NOT an essential element of crime and need not be proven by the State.
- The absence of such motive is important in ascertaining the truth as between two antagonistic theories or versions of killings (crime).
Note: Proof of motive alone will not establish guilt in the same way the absence thereof cannot establish innocence.
17
Q
Witness Need Not Have to Know the Name of the Accused
A
• The witness need not know the name of the accused for so long as he recognizes his face.
• The weight of the eyewitness account is premised on the fact that the said witness saw (recognized the face) the accused commit the crime, and not because he knew his name.
18
Q
Defense of Alibi
A
• Alibi is the weakest of all defenses, for it is easy to fabricate and difficult to disprove, and it is for this reason that it cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by the witness.
• For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove that following:
(1) that he was present at another place at the time of the perpetration of the crime
(2) that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime during commission
19
Q
Defense of Denial and Frame-Up
A
• The defense of frame-up can invariably be viewed with disfavor, for it can easily be concocted but its difficult to prove.
• For defense of frame-up to be valid, clear and convincing evidence must be presented.
20
Q
What is Intentional Felony?
A
• For an intentional felony to exist, it is necessary that the act be committed by means of dolo or “malice”.
• Dolo or malice elements:
(1) freedom – an act done with deliberation
(2) intelligence – concerns the ability to determine morality of human acts as well as capacity to distinguish between licit and illicit; and
(3) malicious intent – an aim or determination to do a certain act
21
Q
Distinguished between Intentional Felony and Culpable Felony
A
Intentional Felonies
(1) Acts or Omissions - Malicious; has the intention to cause an injury
(2) Intent - Deliberate (Dolo)
(3) Example - Robbery
Culpable Felonies
(1) Acts or Omissions - NOT Malicious; the injury caused by the offender is unintentional, act performed without malice
(2) Intent - Fault (Culpa)
(3) Example - Reckless imprudence resulting in damage
22
Q
Distinguished between Intentional Felony and Culpable Felony
A
Intentional Felonies
(1) Acts or Omissions - Malicious; has the intention to cause an injury
(2) Intent - Deliberate (Dolo)
(3) Example - Robbery
Culpable Felonies
(1) Acts or Omissions - NOT Malicious; the injury caused by the offender is unintentional, act performed without malice
(2) Intent - Fault (Culpa)
(3) Example - Reckless imprudence resulting in damage
23
Q
Distinguish between Mala In Se and Mala Prohibita
A
Mala in Se
(1) Nature - Inherently evil or wrong, regardless of regulation
(2) Malice Necessary - Yes, malice is necessary (intent to do wrong)
(3) Example - Murder, Theft, Rape
Mala Prohibita
(1) Nature - Wrong because they are prohibited by law, not inherently evil
(2) Malice Necessary - Immaterial – since the act is illegal itself
(3) Example - Illegal Logging, Smuggling, Illegal Possession of Firearms
24
Q
Not Valid Defense in Mala Prohibita
A
Lack of criminal intent and good faith are not exempting circumstances where the crime charged is malum prohibitum.
25
What is Mistake of Fact?
• A **“mistake of fact”** is a misapprehension of fact which, if true, would have justified the act or omission which is the subject of the prosecution.
• Generally, a reasonable *mistake of fact is a defense* to a charge of crime where;; *it negates the intent component of the crime*.
26
Mistake of Fact as a Defense
• A proper invocation of **Mistake of Fact as a defense** requires:
(1) That the mistake be honest and reasonable;
(2) That it be matter of fact; and
(3) That it negates the culpability required to commit the crime or the existence of mental state.
27
Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code
**Article 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.
(2) By any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or an account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.
28
Article 4(1) - Wrongful act be different from intended
- A person committing a felony is criminally liable *for all the natural and logical consequences* resulting therefrom although the wrongful act be done different from that which he intended.
- “**Natural**” refers to;; an occurrence in the ordinary course of human life or events.
- “**Logical**” means;; that there is a rational connection between the act of the accused and the resulting injury or damage.
29
Article 4(1) - Proximate cause
- **Proximate cause** is defined as that cause, which, in natural and continuous consequence, unbroken by any *efficient intervening cause*, produces the injury, and without which result would not have occurred.
- The felony committed is **not the proximate cause** of the resulting injury when:
(1) **there is an active force that intervened between the felony committed and the resulting injury, and the active force is a distant act or fact absolutely foreign from the felonies act of the accused**; or
(2) **the resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the victim**.
30
Article 4(1) - Impossible crime
The requisite of an impossible crime are:
(1) *that the act performed would be an offense against persons or property*;
(2) *that the act was done with evil intent*;
(3) *that it is accomplishment was inherently impossible or the means employed was either inadequate or ineffectual.*
- To be impossible under this clause, the act intended by the offender must be by its nature one impossible of accomplishment. There must be either;; (1) *legal impossibility*, or (2) *physical impossibility of accomplishing the intended act in order to qualify the act as an impossible crime*.
- **Legal impossibility** occurs when;; the intended acts, even if completed, would not amount to a crime.
- **Factual impossibility** occurs when;; extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond his control prevent the consummation of the intended crime.
31
Article 4(1) - “Although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended" meaning?
This phrase covers situations where the result of the criminal act is different from what the perpetrator intended. This includes cases of:
(1) **mistake in identity** (*error in personae*);
(2) **mistake in the blow** (*aberratio ictus*); or
(3) **when the act exceeds the intent** (*praeter intentionem*).
32
Article 4(1) - Any Person Who Creates in Another's Mind an Immediate Sense of Danger, Which Causes the Latter to Do Something Resulting in the Latter's Injuries, Is Liable for the Resulting Injuries
- **Legal Principle**: If a person’s actions create a sense of immediate danger, prompting the victim to act in a way that leads to injury or death, the perpetrator is;; liable for the outcome.
- **Case: People v. Toling**: The court held the defendant liable for a passenger’s death who jumped out of a jeepney due to threats made during a robbery, resulting in fatal injuries.
33
Article 4(1) - Not efficient intervening causes:
1. **Pre-existing Physical Condition**: The victim's weak or diseased state does not break the chain of causation.
2. **Neglect or Refusal of Medical Treatment**: If the victim neglects or refuses medical treatment, it does not absolve the perpetrator of liability.
3. **Medical Malpractice**: Erroneous or unskillful treatment by doctors does not constitute an efficient intervening cause.
4. **Victim’s Actions**: The actions of the victim in response to the danger created by the perpetrator, such as trying to escape, do not break the chain of causation.
34
Article 4(2) - "Performing an act which would be an offense against persons or property"
The act intended must be a crime against persons or property. If the intended crime would not have been against persons or property, there is no impossible crime.
35
Article 4(2) - Felonies against persons and property
**Felonies Against Persons Are:**
Examples:
- Parricide (Article 246)
- Murder (Article 248)
- Homicide (Article 249)
- Infanticide (Article 255)
- Abortion (Articles 256-259)
- Duel (Articles 260-261)
- Physical Injuries (Articles 262-266)
- Rape (Article 266-A)
**Felonies Against Property Are:**
Examples:
- Robbery (Articles 294, 297-303)
- Brigandage (Articles 306-307)
- Theft (Articles 308, 310-311)
- Usurpation (Articles 312-313)
- Culpable Insolvency (Article 314)
- Swindling and Other Deceits (Articles 315-318)
- Chattel Mortgage (Article 319)
- Arson and Other Crimes Involving Destruction (Articles 320-326)
- Malicious Mischief (Articles 327-331)
36
Article 4(2) - In Impossible Crime the Act Performed Should Not Constitute a Violation of Another Provision of the Code
- **Legal Principle**: If the act constitutes a crime under another provision of the Revised Penal Code, it is not an impossible crime but rather;; an attempted, frustrated, or consummated offense under that provision.
- **Example**: If a person points a gun at another, intending to commit robbery, but the victim has nothing to steal, the act constitutes attempted robbery, not an impossible crime.
37
Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code
Article 6: Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies.** – Consummated felonies as well as those which are frustrated and attempted, are punishable.
A felony is *consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present*; and it is *frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator*.
There is an *attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance*.
38
Article 6 - Attempted Felony Requisites
The essential elements of an attempted felony are as follows:
(1) The offender commences the commission of the felony directly be overt acts;
(2) He does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony;
(3) The offender’s act be not stopped by his own spontaneous desistance; and
(4) The non-performance of all acts of execution was due to cause or accident other than his spontaneous desistance.
39
Article 6 - Frustrated Felony Requisites
- Elements:
1. The offender performs all the acts of execution;
2. All the acts performed would be produce the felony as a consequence;
3. But the felony is not produced, and;
4. By reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.
40
Article 6 - No Frustrated Stage in Rape
- Clearly, in the crime of rape, from the moment the offender has carnal knowledge of his victim, he actually attains his purpose and, from that moment also all the essential elements of the offence have been accomplished. Nothing more is left to be done by the offender, because he has performed the last act necessary to produce the crime. Thus the felony is consummated.
41
Article 6 - No Frustrated Stage in Theft/Robbery
- Theft is either attempted or consummated.
- Theft is already “produced” upon the “taking of personal property of another without the latter’s consent.”
42
Article 6 - The External Acts Must Be Related to the Overt Acts of the Crime the Offender Intended to Commit
- **Overt acts**: Defined as physical activities indicating the intention to commit a specific crime, more than mere planning or preparation.
43
Article 6 - "Commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts"
- **"Commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts"**: This occurs when:
1. There are external acts.
2. These acts have a direct connection with the crime intended.
44
Article 6 - Preparatory Acts and Overt Acts, Distinguished
- **Preparatory acts**: E.g., buying poison for murder is not an overt act because it has no direct connection to the crime of murder.
- **Overt acts**: Mixing poison with food intended for the victim is an overt act as it directly connects to the intention to commit murder.
45
Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code
**Article 8: Conspiracy and Proposal to Commit Felony.** — Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are punishable only in the cases in which the law specially provides a penalty therefor.
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.
There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a felony proposes its execution to some other person or persons.
46
Article 8 - Conspiracy
- Generally, conspiracy is not a crime except when the law specifically provides a penalty therefor as in treason, rebellion, and sedition.
- There is a conspiracy when two or more persons agree to commit a crime and decide to commit it.
- Once conspiracy is established, it is unnecessary to prove who among the conspirators inflicted the fatal injury. If conspiracy is proved, all the conspirators are criminally liable for the crime charged and proved. The act of one is the act of all.
- It is sufficient that they acted in concert pursuant to the same objective.
- The existence of malicious intent is necessary in order for conspiracy to attach.
47
Article 8: Conspiracy as a Felony, Distinguished from Conspiracy as a Manner of Incurring Criminal Liability
- **Conspiracy as a Felony:** When conspiracy is punishable as a separate offense (e.g., treason, rebellion), it is a felony in itself.
- **Conspiracy as a Manner of Incurring Criminal Liability:** If a crime is committed, conspiracy serves as a means of holding all participants equally liable, even if they did not all commit the same acts.
48
Article 8 - Treason, Coup d'etat, Rebellion, or Sedition Should Not Be Actually Committed
- For conspiracy to be punishable, these crimes should not be actually committed. If they are committed, the conspirators are liable for the actual crime, and the conspiracy is only a means of incurring criminal liability, not a separate offense.
49
Article 8 - Requisites of Conspiracy
(1) Two or more persons must agree.
(2) The agreement must concern the commission of a felony.
(3) There must be a decision to commit the felony.
50
Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code - Justifying Circumstances
**Article 11: Justifying Circumstances.** — The following do not incur any criminal liability:
(1) Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstances concur:
- First. Unlawful aggression;
- Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;
- Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.
(2) Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or of his relatives by affinity in the same degrees, and those by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree, provided that the first and second requisites prescribed in the next preceding circumstance are present, and the further requisite, in case the provocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making defense had no part therein.
(3) Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger, provided that the first and second requisites mentioned in the first circumstance of this article are present and that the person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.
(4) Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does an act which causes damage to another, provided that the following requisites are present:
- First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
- Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it;
- Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.
(5) Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office.
(6) Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose.
51
Article 11(1) - Self Defense
- The accused has freedom of action. He is aware of the consequences of his deliberate acts.
- He had to be quick, and his responses should be commensurate to the imminent harm. This is the only way to judge him.
- The right of a person to take life in self-defense arises from his belief in the necessity for doing so; and his belief and the reasonableness thereof are to be judged in the light of the circumstances as they then appeared to him, not in the light of circumstances as they would appear to others.
- When the accused, however, admits killing the victim, it is incumbent upon him to prove any claimed justifying circumstance by clear and convincing evidence.
- Self-defense, like alibi, is a defense which can easily be concocted. Therefore, to prove the justifying circumstance claimed by him with clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence.
52
Article 11(1) - Requisites of Self-Defense
The elements of self-defense are:
(1) that the victim has committed unlawful aggression amounting to actual or imminent threat to the life and limb of the person claiming self-defense;
(2) that the reasonable necessity in the means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression;
(3) that there be lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person claiming self-defense or, at least, that any provocation executed by the person claiming self-defense be not the proximate and immediate cause of the victim's aggression.
53
Article 11 - Unlawful Agression
- Unlawful aggression is an actual physical assault or at least at threat to attack of inflict physical injury upon a person.
- A mere threatening or intimidating attitude is not considered unlawful aggression.
- There must be an actual, sudden, unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof, which puts the defendant's life in peril.
- The imminent attack must be offensive and positively strong.
54
Article 11 - Requisites of Unlawful Agression
Anent unlawful aggression, the accused must establish the concurrence of the following elements, namely:
(a) there must be a physical or material attack or assault;
(b) the attack or assault must be actual, or, at least imminent;
(c) the attack or assault must be unlawful
55
Article 11 - Types of Aggression
- **Actual or material unlawful aggression** means an attack with physical force or with a weapon, an offensive act that positively determines the intent of the aggressor to cause the injury.
- **Imminent unlawful aggression** means an attack that is impending or at the point of happening; it must not consist in a mere threatening attitude, nor must it be merely imaginary, but must be offensive and positively strong.
56
Article 11(1,2) - Unlawful Aggression, an Indispensable Requisite
- There can be no self-defense, complete or incomplete, unless there is clear and convincing proof of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim.
- A belief that a person is about to be attacked is not sufficient. Even an intimidating or threatening attitude is by no means enough.
- If there's nothing to prevent or repel, the other two requisites of self-defense will have no basis.
57
Article 11 - When an Unlawful Aggression has Ceased to Exist
- When an unlawful aggression has ceased to exist, the one making a defense has no right to kill or injure the former aggression.
- Aggression, if not continuous, does not constitute aggression warranting self-defense.
58
Article 11 - Retaliation Distinguished from Self-defense
- Self-defense must be distinguished from retaliation; that in retaliation, the inceptual unlawful aggression had already ceased when the accused attacked him.
- In self-defense, the unlawful aggression was still existing when the aggressor was injured or disabled by the person making the defense.
- Retaliation is not the same as self-defense. In retaliation, the aggression that was begun by the injured already ceased when the accused attacked him, while in self-defense the aggression still existed when the aggressor was injured by the accused.
- When unlawful aggression ceases, the defender no longer has any right to kill or wound the former aggressor; otherwise retaliation and not self-defense is committed.
59
Article 11 - The Means Employed to Prevent or Repel the Aggression
- The means employed by the person claiming the defense must be commensurate to the nature and extent of the attack sought to be averted.
- The requisite envisions a rational equivalence between the perceived danger and the means employed to repel the attack.
- What the law requires is a rational equivalence.
60
Article 11(3) - Requisites of Lack of Sufficient Provocation
This third requisite of self-defense is present:
(1) when no provocation at all was given to the aggressor
(2) when, even if provocation was sufficient, it was not given by the person defending himself
(3) when even if a provocation was given by the person defending himself, it was not proximate and immediate to the act of aggression.
61
Article 11(4) - Avoidance of Greater Evil
To successfully invoke avoidance of greater evil as a justifying circumstance, the following requisites should be complied with:
(1) the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
(2) the injury feared to be greater than that done to avoid it;
(3) there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.
62
Article 11(5) - Requisites of Fulfilment of Duty
The availability of the justifying circumstance of fulfilment of duty or lawful exercise of a right or office under Article 11(5) of the Revised Penal Code rests on proof that:
(1) the accused acted in the performance of his duty or in the lawful exercise of his right or office; and
(2) the injury caused or the offense committed is the necessary consequence of the due performance of such duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office.
63
Article 11(6) - Requisites for Obedience to an Order
Any person acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose does not incur any criminal liability. For this justifying circumstance to apply, the following requisites must be present:
(1) an order has been issued by a superior;
(2) such order must be for some lawful purpose;
and
(3) the means used by the subordinate to carry out said order is lawful.
64
Article 11(6) - Requisites for Obedience to an Order
Any person acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose does not incur any criminal liability. For this justifying circumstance to apply, the following requisites must be present:
(1) an order has been issued by a superior;
(2) such order must be for some lawful purpose;
and
(3) the means used by the subordinate to carry out said order is lawful.
65
Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code
**Article 12.** _Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability._ - the following are exempt from criminal liability:
(1) An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval. When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act which the law defines as a felony (delito), the court shall order his confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums established for persons thus afflicted, which he shall not be permitted to leave without first obtaining the permission of the same court.
(2) A person under 15 years of age.
(3) A person over 15 years of age and under 18 years, unless he has acted with discernment.
(4) Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by mere accident without fault or intention of causing it.
(5) Any person who act under the compulsion of irresistible force.
(6) Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury.
(7) Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented by some lawful insuperable cause.
66
Article 12(1) - Imbecility/Insanity
- Anyone who pleads the said defense bears the burden of proving it with clear and convincing evidence.
- Insanity exists when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence while committing the act.
- Mere abnormality of the mental faculties will not exclude imputability. The accused must be "so insane as to be incapable of entertaining a criminal intent."
67
Article 12(1) - Three-way Test for Insanity Defense to Prosper
(1) Insanity must be present at the time of the commission of the crime;
(2) Insanity, which is the primary cause of the criminal act, must be medically proven;
(3) The effect of the insanity is the inability to appreciate the nature and quality of wrongfulness of the act.
68
Article 12(2) - Minority
- A minor over 15years of age and under 18 (as amended by R.A. No. 9344) is exempt from criminal liability if charged with a felony.
- The reason for the exemption is that a minor of such age is presumed lacking the mental element of a crime - the capacity to know what is wrong as distinguished from what is right or to determine the morality of human acts; wrong in the sense in which term is used in moral wrong.
- For a minor at such an age to be criminally liable, the prosecution is burdened to prove beyond reasonable doubt, by direct or circumstantial evidence, that he acted with discernment, meaning that he knew what he was doing and that it was wrong.
69
Article 12(3) - Minimum age of criminal liability under R.A. No. 9344
**SEC. 6.** *Minimum age of criminal responsibility*. A child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability.
- "A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age shall likewise be exempt from criminal liability and be subjected to an intervention program, unless he/she acted with discernment.
**SEC. 58.** *Offense not applicable to children*. Persons below eighteen (18) years of age shall be exempt from criminal prosecution for the crime of vagrancy and prostitution under Section 202 of the Revised Penal Code, of mendicancy under Presidential Decree No. 1563, and sniffing ruby under Presidential Decree No. 1619
70
Article 12(4) - Accident
For this to be properly appreciated, the following requisites must concur:
(1) that the accused was performing a lawful act with due care;
(2) that the injury is caused by mere accident; and
(3) that there was no fault or intent on his part to cause the injury.
71
Article 12(6) - Uncontrollable Fear
- For such defense to prosper the duress, force, fear, or intimidation must be present, imminent, and impending, and of such nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the act be done.
- To avail of this exempting circumstances, the evidence must establish:
(1) the existence of an uncontrollable fear;
(2) that the fear must be real and imminent; and
(3) the fear of an injury is greater than, or at least equal to, that committed.
72
Article 12(5) - Irresistble Force
- A person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force, like one who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury, is exempt from criminal liability because he does not act with freedom.
- *Actus me invito factus non est meus actus*. An act done by me against my will is not my act
73
Entrapment v. Instigation
- The difference in the nature of the two lies in the origin of the criminal intent. In entrapment, the *mens rea* originates from the mind of the criminal. The idea and the resolve to commit the crime come from him.
- In instigation, the law officer conceives the commission of the crime and suggest to the accused who adopts the idea and carries it into execution.
74
Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code
**ARTICLE 13.** Mitigating Circumstances. — The following are mitigating circumstances:
(1) Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the requisites necessary to justify the act or to exempt from criminal liability in the respective cases are not attendant.
(2) That the offender is under eighteen years of age or over seventy years.
(3) That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.
(4) That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party immediately preceded the act.
(5) That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave offense to the one committing the felony (delito), his spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural, or adopted brothers or sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees.
(6) That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation.
(7) That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a person in authority or his agents, or that he had voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior to the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution.
(8) That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering some physical defect which thus restricts his means of action, defense, or communication with his fellow beings.
(9) Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the will-power of the offender without however depriving him of consciousness of his acts.
(10) And, finally, any other circumstance of a similar nature and analogous to those above mentioned.
75
Article 13(3) - No intent to commit so grave a wrong
- The determination of the real intention of the offender may be based on the weapon used, the part of the body injured, the injury inflicted and the manner it is inflicted.
76
Article 13(4) - Sufficient provocation and threat
The following elements must concur:
(1) The provocation or threat must be sufficient or proportionate to the crime committed and adequate to arouse one to its commission;
(2) That the provocation or threat must originate from the offended party; and
(3) That the provocation must be immediate to the commision of the crime by the person provoked.
77
Article 13(5) - Vinidication of a grave offense
For such to be credited, the following requisites must be satisfied:
(1) that there be a grave offense done to the one committing the felony, his spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degree; and
(2) that the felony is committed in vindication of such grave offense.
78
Article 13(6) - Passion or obfuscation
For this mitigating circumstances to be considered, it must be shown that:
(1) an unlawful act sufficient to produce passion and obfuscation was committed by the intended victim;
(2) that the crime was commited with a reasonable length of time from the commission of the unlawful act that produced the obfuscation in the accused's mind; and that
(3) the passion and obfuscation arose from lawful sentiments and not from a spirit of lawlessness or revenge.
79
Article 13(7) - Voluntary surrender
For voluntary surrender to mitigate criminal liability, the following elements must concur:
(1) the offender has not been actually arrested;
(2) the offender surrender himself to a person in authority or the his agents; and
(3) the surrender is voluntary
80
Article 13(7) - Confession of guilt
The following requirements must concur:
(1) the accused spontaneously confessed his guilt;
(2) the confession of guilt was made in open court, that is, before a competent courty trying the case; and
(3) the confession of guilt was made prior to the presentation of evidence for prosecution.
