DOCTRINE 1.

Accessorious sequitur

2. Positivist Theory

3. Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege

4. Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea

5. Ignoratia facti excusat

DEFINITION One who is an accessory to the crime cannot be guilty of a more serious crime than the principal offender. That a man is subdued occasionally by a strange and morbid phenomenon which constrains him to do wrong, in spite of or contrary to his volition. There is no crime where there is no law punishing it. The phrase punished by law should be understood to mean punished by the Revised Penal Code and not by a special law. A crime is not committed if the mind of the person performing to act complained be innocent. The general rule is that if it is proved that the accused committed the criminal act charged, it will be presumed that the act was done with criminal intention and that it is for the accused to rebut this presumption. Ignorance or mistake of fact relieves the accused from criminal liability. Mistake of fact is a misapprehension of fact on the part of the person who caused injury to

CASE/S

another. He is not, however, criminally liable, because he did not act with criminal intent. An honest mistake of fact destroys the presumption of criminal intent which arises upon the commission of a felonious act. 6. Error in personae Mistake of identity of the victim 7. Actus me invite non est meus An act done by me against my will actus is not my act 8. El que es causa de la causa es He who is the cause of the cause is causa del mal causado the cause of the evil caused. 9. Praeter Intentionem The injurious result is greater than that intended 10. Aberratio Ictus There is a mistake in the blow. Blow or stroke gone astray as when a person receives a blow or a bullet intended for another. 11. Dura lex sed lex The law is harsh but it is the law. This maxim enunciates the supremacy of the law. That law, however, must be an ambiguously and unequivocally clear so as to call for application, however hard or harsh its effect might be. Any interpretation of the law is restricted towards its application. 12. Accesorium Sequitur Accessory follows the principal Principale 13. Accesio Cedit Principali Accessory right must yield to the principal

14. Ex post facto law

Law making an act criminal after its performance. Per our Constitution, ex post facto laws are: 1) statutes that make an act criminal when such act was not an offense when committed; 2) laws which, while not creating new offenses, aggravates the seriousness of a crime, or makes it greater than when it was committed; 3) laws which prescribe greater punishment for a crime already done; or 4) laws which alter the rules of evidence to make it substantially easier to convict, or authorizes conviction upon less or different testimony than the law required when the offense was committed.

15. In dubiss reus est absolvendus 16. Mala in se 17. Mala prohibita

All doubts should be resolved in favor of the accused Offense that is inherently wrong An act made an offense by law or statute. In non-possessory mala prohibita offenses, mere performance of the prohibited act does not necessarily justify imposition of the penalty provided by the special law. It is essential for the court to determine whether

18. Merger Doctrine

imposition of such penalty upon the responded will be best serve the best interest of the allegedly wronged society with the noble purposes of the law. Conviction should not glorify the practice of the actual wrong doer if he is other than the accused. The merger doctrine in the common law of criminal law requires that lesser included charges merge into more serious offenses charged. For example, a criminal defendant could not be convicted of both assault and robbery stemming from a single event, because a robbery includes an assault(dubioussee talk page) . Similarly, manslaughter cannot act as the "underlying felony" for the purposes of a felony murder charge, since it would have the effect of making all manslaughters felony murder. The offenses therefore merge together, and the defendant can be convicted of only the robbery, or only the assault in the first case, and only the manslaughter in the second. Solicitation to commit a crime and attempt to commit a crime, although not strictly speaking lesser

19. Castle Doctrine

included offenses, merge into the completed crime. However, an important exception to the merger doctrine is the crime of conspiracy, which does not merge into the completed crime. Some states have eliminated the merger doctrine, permitting defendants to be convicted of both the lesser included charge and the greater charge. This doctrine is an American legal doctrine that designates a person's abode (or, in some states, any legally-occupied place [e.g., a vehicle or workplace]) as a place in which that person has certain protections and immunities permitting him or her, in certain circumstances, to use force (up to and including deadly force) to defend against an intruder - free from legal responsibility/prosecution for the consequences of the force [1] used. Typically deadly force is considered justified, and a defense of justifiable homicide applicable, in cases "when the actor reasonably fears imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to him or

herself or another".[1] The doctrine is not a defined law that can be invoked, but a set of principles which is incorporated in some form in the law of most states. 20. Accesorious sequitur One who is an accessory to the crime cannot be guilty of a more serious crime than the principal offender 21. Doctrine of Necessity In U.S. criminal law, necessity may be either a possible justification or an exculpation for breaking the law. Defendants seeking to rely on this defense argue that they should not be held liable for their actions as a crime because their conduct was necessary to prevent some greater harm and when that conduct is not excused under some other more specific provision of law such as selfdefense. Except for a few statutory exemptions and in some medical cases [1] there is no corresponding defense in English law for murder. 22. Doctrine of common purpose The doctrine of common purpose, common design, joint enterprise, or joint criminal enterprise is a legal doctrine in some common law jurisdictions which

imputes criminal liability on the participants to a criminal enterprise for all that results from that enterprise. A common incidence of the application of the rule is to impute criminal liability for assaulting a person with a knife, on all the participants to a riot who knew, or were reckless as to knowing, that one of their number had a knife and might use it, even when the imputed participants did not actually have knives themselves. DOCTRINES IN TREASON DOCTRINE 23. CASE/S