Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

Crim Law I > Felonies (Notebook) > Flashcards

Felonies (Notebook) Flashcards

1
Q

Definition of Felonies

A

Acts and omissions punishable by law committed through deceit (dolo) or fault (culpa).

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Three General Elements of Felonies

A
  1. An act or omission.
  2. The act or omission is punishable by the Revised Penal Code.
  3. It is committed by dolo or culpa.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Definition of Dolo

A

Deceit; when the act is performed with deliberate intent. Characterized by the presence of malice.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Definition of Culpa

A

Fault; when the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill. Characterized by the absence of malice.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Definition of an Act

A

A bodily movement tending to produce some effect in the external world. It is not necessary that the effect be actually produced.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What are Intentional Felonies?

A

The offender has the intention to do or cause an injury to another.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What are Culpable Felonies?

A

A person causes an injury without intent to cause an evil.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What are the three Requisites of Dolo?

A
  1. Criminal intent on the part of the offender.
  2. Freedom of action in doing the act.
  3. Intelligence on the part of the offender.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Define Intent

A

The purpose to use a particular means to effect a result. Generally presumed from the commission of an unlawful act.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Define Discernment

A

The mental capacity to tell right from wrong.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Define Motive

A

Reason/moving power which impels one to action for a definite result.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

When is Motive relevant?

A
  1. When the identity of the accused is in dispute.
  2. For purposes of defense.
  3. In determining the sanity of the accused.
  4. In direct and indirect assault.
  5. When there are no eyewitnesses and suspicion is likely to fall on a number of suspects.
  6. In defense of strangers.
  7. When the evidence is circumstantial.
  8. When there are two antagonistic versions of the killing
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Define Mistake of Fact

A

Misapprehension of fact on the part of the person who caused injury to another. The person is not criminally liable because they did not act with criminal intent.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Three Requisites of Mistake of Fact as a defense

A
  1. The act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed them to be.
  2. The intention of the accused in performing the act is lawful.
  3. The mistake was without fault or carelessness on the part of the accused.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What is the meaning of Ignorantia facti excusat?

A

A mistake in fact absolves or excuses. Ignorance or mistake in point of fact is, in all cases of supposed offense, a sufficient excuse.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Mistake of Fact vs. Mistake of Identity

A

Mistake of fact: no criminal intent.
Mistake of identity: criminal intent is directed at the wrong person.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Define Culpa

A
  1. Criminal negligence on the part of the offender.
  2. Freedom of action in doing the act.
  3. Intelligence on the part of the offender in performing the negligent act.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Define Mala in se

A

The act is inherently immoral or evil or bad per se, or wrongful. Intent is necessary; good faith is a defense.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Define Mala Prohibita

A

The act penalized is not inherently wrong; it is wrong only because a law punishes the same. The doing of an act violating the law suffices to make one criminally liable. Criminal intent is not necessary; good faith is not a defense.

20
Q

How is Criminal Liability Incurred? (Two ways)

A
  1. By any person committing a felony, although the wrongful act be different from that intended.
  2. By any person committing an act which would be an offense against persons or property were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate means.
21
Q

Define Aberratio Ictus

A

Mistake in the blow; One who fired his gun at B but missed and hit C instead is liable to C although he had no intention to injure him.

22
Q

Define Praeter Intentionem

A

The blow went beyond the intent; One who gave a fist blow on the head of B, causing B to fall and his head to strike the pavement, is liable for the death of B, although he had no intention to kill him.

23
Q

What are the classes of crimes?

A

Intentional felonies, culpable felonies, and crimes punished by SPL.

24
Q

What are the requisites of dolo or malice (intentional felonies)?

A

Freedom of action, intelligence, and intent.

25
What replaces criminal intent in culpable felonies?
Negligence or imprudence.
26
Define Negligence
Lack of foresight. Deficiency of perception. Failure to use diligence.
27
Define Imprudence
Lack of skill. Failure to take necessary precaution.
28
What are status offenses?
Offenses which discriminate only against a child, while an adult does not suffer any penalty for committing similar acts.
29
What is the long-standing Latin maxim that supplies an important characteristic of a crime?
"Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea". Ordinarily, evil intent must unite with an unlawful act for there to be a crime. There can be no crime when the criminal mind is wanting. The act itself does not make a man guilty unless his intention were so.
30
What must the prosecution prove in mala prohibita?
Prosecution has the burden of proof to establish that accused had intent to perpetrate the act.
31
What is the difference between intent to commit a crime and intent to perpetrate the act?
Intent to commit a crime has knowledge of the nature of the act i.e. it is a crime, intent to perpetrate the act involves doing something believing that the act is lawful
32
Case: People v. Ramirez
The accused was hunting for deer with companions, saw a pair of eyes, thought it was a deer, and fired. It turned out to be his hunter-companion. Ramirez was held liable for the resulting felony because of negligence in failing to realize that he had other companions and in not verifying their whereabouts before firing the shot. This case illustrates culpa.
33
Case: People v. Lopez
A truck driver hit a girl who crossed the street. His defense was that he should not be liable because he did not intend to cause the injury. The court held Lopez liable for Reckless Imprudence resulting in Homicide because his acts, though negligent, are definitely voluntary.
34
Case: Ilder v. Modesto-San Pedro
"Reckless imprudence is not a crime in itself but simply a way of committing it". The Court explained this on three points of analysis relating to quasi-crimes versus intentional crimes
35
Case: People v. Pacana
Reiterated the rule that "ordinarily, evil intent must unite with an unlawful act for there to be a crime. Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea. There can be no crime when the criminal mind is wanting." This case involved falsification of public documents and estafa.
36
Case: Antonio Sanchez v. People
The Supreme Court ruled that a Violation of RA 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices act may be committed either by dolo or culpa.
37
Case: Norberto Cruz v. People
Without showing the penis capable of consummating the sexual act touching the external genitalia of the female, only the felony of acts of lasciviousness is committed.
38
Case: Rivera v. People
The Court ruled that intent to kill is a specific intent which the prosecution must prove by direct or circumstantial evidence, consisting of means used, nature/location/number of wounds, conduct of malefactors, circumstances of the crime, and motives of the accused.
39
Case: People v. Zeta
Lack of motive does not preclude conviction when the crime and the participation of the accused in the crime are definitely shown. Motive gains importance only when the identity of the culprit is doubtful.
40
Case: US v. Ah Chong
This case supports the theory of non-liability by reason of honest mistake of fact. The maxim is ignorantia facti excusat, but this applies only when the mistake is committed without fault or carelessness. The accused was acquitted of homicide because of his honest mistake of fact
41
Case: People v. Ganis and Baxinela v. People
The justification of an act, which is otherwise criminal on the basis of a mistake of fact, must preclude negligence or bad faith on the part of the accused.
42
Case: People v. Esmael Gerveto, et al.
Demonstrates limitations of mistake of fact. There was no reason for the accused not to recognize the victims. A mistake in the identity of the intended victim cannot be considered exempting, nor can it be considered reckless imprudence when an unlawful act is willfully done.
43
Case: US v. Catangay
A hunter stumbled upon a fallen log, causing his gun to fire and hit one of his companions. He was held not liable for the injury sustained by his companions as the injury arose out of an accident.
44
Case: Garcia v. C.A.
Criminal intent is not necessary where the acts are prohibited for reasons of public policy in crimes that are mala prohibita
45
Case: People v. Amador Pastrana and Rufina Abad
Double jeopardy will not set in because violation of Section 28.1 of the SRC is malum prohibitum, in which there is no necessity to prove criminal intent, whereas estafa is malum in se, in the prosecution of which, proof of criminal intent is necessary.
46
Case: Diosdado vs. People of the PH
Cutting of the tree was a causal, incidental, and harmless act done within the context of their customary tradition i.e. it was done in obedience with the orders of the elders of the tribe. The Court is not convinced that the intent to perpetrate the offense has been established with moral certainty.
47
Case: Dandy Dungo, et al. vs. People of the Philippines
The Senate deliberations would show that the lawmakers intended the anti-hazing statute to be malum prohibitum. The Congress created a special law on hazing, founded upon the principle of mala prohibita.

Crim Law I (6 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions