Article 11 Flashcards
(102 cards)
1
Q
The circumstances affecting criminal liability (5)
A
- Justifying circumstances
- Exempting circumstances, and other absolutory causes
- Mitigating circumstances
- Aggravating circumstances
- Alternative circumstances
2
Q
Define imputability
A
The quality by which an act may be ascribed to a person as its author or owner. It implies that the act committed has been FREELY and CONSCIOUSLY done and may, therefore, be put down to the doer as his very own
3
Q
Define responsibility
A
The obligation of SUFFERING the CONSEQUENCES of a crime. It is the obligation of taking the penal and civil consequences of the crime
4
Q
Distinguish imputability from responsibility
A
Imputability implies that a deed may be imputed to a person, responsibility implies that the person must take the consequence of such a deed
5
Q
Define guilty
A
It is an element of responsibility, for a man cannot be made to answer for the consequences of a crime unless he is guilty
6
Q
Define justifying circumstances
A
Those where the act of a person is said to be in accordance with law, so that such person is deemed not to have transgressed the law and is free from both criminal and civil liability
7
Q
The only paragraph in Article 11 of RPC that provides where civil liability is borne by the persons benefited by the act
A
Paragraph 4 of Article 11 of the RPC
8
Q
The basis of justifying circumstances
A
The law recognizes the non-existence of a crime by expressly stating in the opening sentence of Article 11 that the persons therein mentioned “do not incur any criminal liability”
9
Q
What are the justifying circumstances as provided by Article 11 of the RPC (6)
A
- Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights
- Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitime, 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
- Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger
- Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does an act which causes damage to another
- Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office
- Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose
10
Q
In claiming a justifying circumstance, who has the burden of proof?
A
The accused, in order to avoid criminal liability, to prove that the justfiying circumstance claimed by him to the satisfaction of the court
11
Q
Does someone who claims a justifying circumstance admit to the commission of the acts?
A
Yes. Under Article 11, an accused who pleads a justifying circumstance admits to the commission of the acts, which would otherwise engender criminal liability. However, accused asserts that he is justified in committing the acts
12
Q
Is it enough to claim self-defense as a justifying circumstance when prosecution evidence is weak?
A
No. The claim of self-defense must be proved with certainty by sufficient, satisfactory and convincing evidence
13
Q
Requisites of self-defense (3)
A
URL
1. Unlawful aggression
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it
3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself
14
Q
English for sine qua non
A
Without which, not. Meaning it is an indispensible requisite/requirement.
15
Q
It is the sine qua non for self-defense
A
Unlawful aggression
16
Q
Two (2) kinds of aggression
A
- Lawful
- Unlawful
17
Q
Define unlawful aggression
A
Assault or at least threatened assault of an immediate and imminent kind. There is unlawful aggression when the peril to one’s life, limb, or right is either actual or imminent
18
Q
Requisites for peril to one’s life (2)
A
- Actual - That the danger must be present,that is, actually in existence
- Imminent - That the danger is on the point of happening. It is not required that the attack already begins, for it may be too late
19
Q
Is a slap on the face considered to be unlawful aggression?
A
Yes. Under Decision of the SC of Spain of Jan. 20, 1904; People v Roxas, 58 Phil. 733.
Reason: The face represents a person and his dignity, slapping it is a serious personal attack
20
Q
Differentiate retaliation from self-defense
A
In retaliation, the aggression that was begun by the injured party already ceased to exist when the accused attacked
In self-defense, the aggression was still exisiting when the aggressor was injured or disabled by the person making a defense
21
Q
Should the attack made by the deceased and the killing of the deceased by the defendant succeed each other without appreciable interval of time?
A
Yes. It is essential that the killing of the deceased by the defendant be SIMULTANEOUS with the attack made by deceased, or at least both acts succeeded each other without appreciable interval of time
22
Q
If the accused had time and occasion for deliberation and cool thinking in killing of the deceased, can the accused claim self-defense?
A
No. The accused must have no time nor occasion for deliberation and cool thinking. This is because at the time, the uppermost thought in the accused’s mind is that their life was in danger and that to save their life, he had to do something to stop the aggression
23
Q
Can the accused claim self-defense when the aggressor is not the deceased?
A
No. In claiming self-defense, the aggressor must be the deceased that unlawfully attacked the accused and it cannot be another person
24
Q
Is unlawful aggression still present even if the aggressor is disarmed?
A
Yes. Provided, that the aggressor still poses a threat to the lives of the accused
25
When the aggressor flees, is there still unlawful aggression?
No. Under People v Alconga, et al. 78 Phil. 366, when the deceased ran away after receiving several wounds, it no longer posed any danger to the life of the accused, hence unlawful aggression was not present anymore from the time the deceased ran away
However, if it is clear that the deceased ran away to retreat to take a more advantageous position, unlawful aggression is considered to be still continuing
26
What is a concerted fight? Is there unlawful aggression in said situation?
It is when two persons agree to a fight. In this situation, there is no unlawful aggression.
This is because when the fight is agreed upon, each one is at once assailant and assaulted, and neither can invoke the right of self-defense
27
Explain the rule on "stand ground when in the right"
This is where the accused is where he has the right to be, the law does not require him to retreat when his assailant is rapidly advancing upon him with a deadly weapon.
The reason for the rule is that if one flees from an aggressor, that person runs the risk of being attacked in the back by the aggressor
28
In a concerted fight, is it unlawful even though the aggression was ahead of the stipulated time and place?
Yes. The acceptance of the challenge did not place on the offended party the burden of preparing to meet an assault at any time even before reaching the appointed time and place agreed (Severino Justo v. Court of Appeals, 53 O.G. 4083)
29
If you voluntarily joined a fight, can you claim self-defense?
No. The Court holds that when one agrees to engage in a fight, they cannot plead self-defense because there is no unlawful aggression to speak of. (Rugas v. People, G.R. No. 147789, January 14, 2004)
30
Three (3) kinds of defense of rights according to Art. 11 Paragraphs 1, 2, 3
1. Defense of woman's honor
2. Defense of property
3. Defense of home
31
What could constitute as an attack upon a woman's honor and, therefore, an unlawful aggression? (2)
1. Embracing a woman, touching her private parts and her breasts, and throwing her to the ground for the purpose of raping her in an uninhabited place when it was twilight
2. Placing a hand by a man on the woman's upper thigh
32
Legal basis for the defense of property
Article 429 of the Civil Code
33
In defense of home, does the owner need to wait for a blow before repelling the aggression?
No. The owner need not wait for a blow before repelling the aggression, as that blow may prove fatal.
34
Principle or basis in defense of home
A man's house is his castle
35
What kind of circumstances should be considered in determining the existence of unlawful aggression? Should it be the actual and objective circumstances at the time of the incident?
The circumstances as the accused perceived them at the time of the incident
36
What is the law of nature?
The foundation of the privilege to use all reasonable means to repel an aggression that endangers one's own life and the lives of others. This is the only way to judge a man in self-defense or in the defense of others
37
When a toy pistol is used by the aggressor, is there still self-defense?
Yes. There is self-defene provided that the accused believe it was a real gun
38
Does a mere threatening or intimidating attitude, not preceded by an outward and material aggression constitute unlawful aggression?
No. It does not constitute unlawful aggression because it is required that the act be offensive and positively strong, showing the wrongful intent of the aggressor to cause an injury
39
Does merely holding a knife in a threatening manner constitute as unlawful aggression?
No. There must be an attack or material aggression or an offensive act that positively determines the intent of the aggressor to cause injury
40
Two (2) requisite adverbs/adjectives for a threatening attitude showing the wrongful intent of the aggressor to cause an injury so as to constitute unlawful aggression
1. Offensive
2. Positively strong
41
Does mere picking up a weapon constitute unlawful aggression?
No. However, if this is preceded by circumstances indicating the intention of the aggressor to use it in attacking, such act is considered unlawful aggression because there was intent to attack being manifested (People v. Javier, 46 O.G. No. 7, July, 1950)
42
Does merely imagining a possible aggression suffice as unlawful aggression in claiming self-defense?
No. The aggression must be real, or at least imminent (People v. De la Cruz, 61 Phil. 422)
43
Requirement for that aggression that is expected to be real so as to constitute as unlawful aggression
It must be imminent
44
Is it unlawful aggression when a public officer exceeds their authority?
Yes. It still constitutes as unlawful aggression
45
The two important phrases in determining reasonable necessity in the second requisite of defense of person or right (2)
1. To prevent
2. To repel
46
This places us in imminent danger
A threat to inflict real injury
47
This places us in actual danger
An actual physical assault
48
Deeper meaning behind the second requisite of self-defense (2)
1. There be a NECESSITY of the COURSE OF ACTION TAKEN by the person making a defense
2. There be a NECESSITY of the MEANS USED
Both must be REASONABLE
49
What do you mean by the Doctrine of rational equivalence
This is when reasonable necessity of the means employed does not imply material commensurability between the means of attack and defense. What the law requires is RATIONAL EQUIVALENCE. This means that the law does not require the attack and defense to be perfectly equal but to be rationally equivalent
50
Define rational equivalence
In the consideration of which will enter as principal factors the emergency, the imminent danger to which the person attacked is exposed, and the instinct, more than reason, that moves or impels the defense, and the proportionateness thereof does not depend upon the harm done, but rests upon the imminent danger of such injury
In short, consider all factors and circumstances
51
In self-defense, this is a priority or reasonable basis for granting the same
The accused must have acted in the instinct of SELF-PRESERVATION
52
When minor phyiscal injuries are inflicted by the accused after unlawful aggression has ceased to exist, does this affect the claim of self-defense? Provided that the accused inflicted mortal wounds at the time the requisites of self-defense were still present
No. Provided that there is ABSENCE OF PROOF that such minor phyiscal injuries hastened the death of the deceased (People v. Del Pilar, C.A., 44 O.G. 596)
53
In self-defense, does the law expect the accused to control his blow in order for such blow to be considered reasonable and necessary to satisfy the second requisite?
No. Defense of person or rights does not necessarily mean the killing of the unlawful aggressor however, the person defending himself cannot be expected to think clearly so as to control his blow
54
In repelling or preventing an unlawful aggression, can the one defending aimlessly use/fire a deadly weapon so as to still constitute self-defense?
No. The one defending must aim at their assailant, and not indiscrimnately use/fire the deadly weapon
55
The test of reasonableness takes into account these qualities in both the aggressor and person defending (3)
1. Nature and quality of the weapon
2. Physical condition, character, size, and other circumstances
3. Place and occasion of the assault
56
When is using a more deadly weapon justified as self defense? (Knife or dagger against a club / Firearm against dagger) (2)
1. Had no other reasonable means
2. If there were other means, they could not COOLLY choose the less deadly weapon to repel the aggression
57
What is the rule for self-defense with regards to unlawful aggression by fist blows?
He must repel the same with the weapon that nature gave him, meaning WITH FISTS also (People v. Montalbo, 56 Phil. 443)
58
General rule in construing reasonable necessity of means employed to prevent or repel unlawful aggression
Reasonable necessity of means employed to prevent or repel unlawful aggression to be liberally construed in favor of law-abiding citizens (People v. So, 5 CAR [2s] 671, 674)
59
Rule for reasonableness of the necessity of the means employed when the one defending is a police officer
A police officer is not required to afford a person attacking him, the opportunity for a fair and equal struggle. However, when the aggressor is using a comparatively harmless weapon, it is not reasonable for the officer to kill said aggressor as a way to repel the attack (U.S. v. Mendoza, 2 Phil. 109)
60
The common requisites for paragraphs 1-3 of Art.11 (Self-defense and defense of others) (2)
First and second requisite
1. Unlawful aggression
2. Reasonable necessity of means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression
61
4 Cases in which the third requisite of self-defense is considered present
1. NO PROVOCATION AT ALL to the aggressor by the person defending
2. Even if provocation was given, it was NOT SUFFICIENT
3. Even if it was sufficient, NOT GIVEN BY THE PERSON DEFENDING HIMSELF
4. Even if it was given by the person defending himself, it was NOT PROXIMATE AND IMMEDIATE TO THE ACT OF AGGRESSION
62
Is engaging in verbal argument a sufficient provocation?
No (Decision of SC of Spain of October 5, 1877)
63
Is there sufficient provocation when one challenges the deceased to come out and engage in a fist fight?
Yes, hence person defending himself cannot claim the benefit of self-defense since the third requisite is lacking
64
Is there sufficient provocation when one hurls insults or utterance of vulgar language?
Yes
65
Is there sufficient provocation when the accused tried to forcibly kiss the sister of the deceased?
Yes
66
Is there still self-defense when the sufficient provocation was given by the a person other than the person defending himself?
Yes. Because the third requisite of self-defense only requires the provocation is not by the person defending himself
67
An example of when provocation by the person defending not proximate and immediate to the aggression
When A slapped the face of B one or two days before B attacked A, and B was seriously injured as a result. There is no sufficient provocation in this instance
68
When a person who acted in self-defense killed the aggressor, and hides after the comission of the crime, can said person still claim self-defense?
Yes. However, highly doubtful as the hiding after the commission of the crime is HIGHLY EVIDENTIARY OF GUILT, and incompatible with self-defense
69
Define battered woman syndrome
A scientifically defined pattern of psychological and behavioral symptoms found in women living in battering relationships as a result of cumulative abuse
70
Can those suffering from battered woman syndrome incur criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the absence of elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense?
No. They do not under Sec. 26, R.A. 9262, Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004
71
Requirement for a woman to have been under the effects of battered woman syndrome
The couple must go through the battering cycle AT LEAST TWICE
72
Three phases of cycle of violence as characterized by the battered woman syndrome
1. Tension-building phase
2. Acute battering incident
3. Tranquil, loving (non-violent) phase
73
When is a couple considered to be under the tension-building phase?
When minor battering occurs. Woman usually tries to pacify the batterer through kind, nurturing behavior
74
When is a couple considered to be under the acute battering incident?
When there is brutality, destructiveness and, sometimes death. During this phase, woman has no control
75
When is a couple under the tranquil, loving phase?
When the couple experience profound relief. Batterer shoes tender and nurturing behavior. Woman tries to convince herself that the battery will never happen again
76
Relatives that can be defended (5)
1. Spouse
2. Ascendants
3. Descendants
4. Legitimate, natural or adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity in the same degrees (in-laws)
5. Relatives by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree (Up to First cousins)
77
This refers to blood relatives
Consanguinity
78
Requisites in defense of relatives (3)
1. Unlawful aggression
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it
3. IN CASE the provocation was given by the person attacked (relative), the one making a defense had no part therein
79
Must unlawful aggression exist as a matter of fact(actually real), or can it be made to depend upon the honest belief of the one making a defense?
It can be made to depend upon the honest belief of the one making a defense (U.S. v. Esmedia, 17 Phil. 260, 264). Essentially, mistake of fact does not affect the claim of defense of relatives
80
Reason for third requisite of defense of relative
That although the provocation prejudices the person who gave it, its effects do not reach the defender who took no part therein, because the latter was prompted by some noble or generous sentiment in protecting and saving a relative
81
Is there still a legitimate defense of a relative when a person defending his relative was also induced by revenge or hated? **[To be confirmed]**
Yes. As long as the three requisites of defense of relatives are present, it will still be a legitimate defense **[To be confirmed]**
82
Requisites in defense of stranger (3)
1. Unlawful aggression
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it
3. The person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive
83
Reason for third requisite of defense of stranger
The Code requires that the defense of a stranger be actuated by a DISINTERESTED or GENEROUS MOTIVE
84
In defense of a stranger, who are deemed strangers?
Those not included in the enumeration of relatives mentioned in paragraph 2 of Art. 11
85
Is furnishing a weapon to a stranger who is in serious danger a defense of stranger?
Yes. By giving the stranger a weapon to defend himself in such danger, it is considered a defense of a stranger
86
Requisites for Par. 4 of Art. 11 - Avoidance of greater evil or injury (3)
1. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists
2. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it
3. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it
87
Does damage to another only cover injury to person?
No. It also includes damage to property
88
Is par. 4 of Art. 11 applicable in killing of the foetus to save the life of the mother?
Yes. The instinct of self-preservation will always make one feel that his own safety is of greater importance than that of another
89
What do you mean by "when the accused was not avoiding any evil, he cannot invoke the justifying circumstance of avoidance of a greater evil or injury"
This means that the accused must exercise due diligence and must not bring about the greater evil upon himself due to his negligence or imprudence
90
Under par. 4 of Art.11, who bears the civil liability?
The persons benefited
91
Requisites for par. 5 of Art. 11 - Fulfillment of duty or lawful exercise of right or office (2)
1. That the accused acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office
2. That the injury caused or the offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance of duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office
92
Does par.5 of Art.11 apply when a prisoner is shot by a guard under self-defense or it is absolutely necessary to avoid the former's escape?
Yes
93
Does par.5 of Art. 11 apply when a police officer shoots an offender who refuses to surrender?
Yes
94
Does par.5 of Art. 11 apply when a security guard shoots a thief who refused to be arrested?
No. The security guard acted in the performance of duty but exceeded the fulfillment of his duty (People v. Bentres, C.A., 49 O.G.)
95
Does an unarmed person putting their hands in their pocket justify a police officer in shooting said person?
No
96
Under Art. 429 of the Civil Code (Lawful exercise of a right), is unlawful aggression necessary against the person charged with the protection of the property?
No. Because it is not stated in Art. 429 of the Civil Code
97
Basis for Doctrine of "Self-Help"
Article 429 of the Civil Code
98
Under Art. 429 of the Civil Code, when should force be used if it is mere disturbance of possession?
Force MAY be used against it at any time as long as it continues, even beyond the prescriptive period for an action of forcible entry
99
Under Art. 429 of the Civil Code, when should force be used if there is invasion consisting of real dispossession?
Force to regain possession can be used only immediately after the dispossession
100
Under Art. 429 of the Civil Code, when should force be used if there is invasion consisting of immovable property?
There should be no delay in the use of force to recover it; because a delay, even if excusable, such as when due to the ignorance of the dispossession, will bar the right to the use of force. Once the usurper's possession has become firm by the lapse of time, the lawful possessor must resort to the competent authority to recover his property
101
Requisites for Par. 6 of Art. 11 of the RPC - Obedience to an order issued for some lawful purpose (3)
1. That an order has been issued by a superior
2. That such order must be for some lawful purpose
3. That the means used by the subordinate to carry out said order is lawful
102
Does Par.6 of Art. 11 of the RPC still apply when the order is not for a lawful purpose?
No. It does not. The subordinate who obeyed is criminally liable however, if such subordinate is not aware of the illegality of the order AND without any fault or negligence on their part, said person is not liable
