What is criminal law?

That branch or division of law which define crimes, treat of their nature, and provide for their punishment. What is a crime? It is an act committed or omitted in violation of a public law forbidding or commanding it. What are the limitations on the power of the law-making body to enact penal legislation? The Bill of Rights of the 1987 Philippine Constitution imposes the following limitations: 1. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted. 2. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law What is an ex post facto law? An ex post facto law is one which: 1. One which makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law and which was innocent when done, and punishes such an act; 2. One which aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed; 3. One which changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when committed; 4. One which alters the legal rules of evidence, ad authorizes conviction upon less or different testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense; 5. One which assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect imposes penalty or deprivation of a right for something which when done; and

6. One which deprives a person accused of a crime some lawful protection to which he has become entitled such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal or a proclamation of amnesty. What is a bill of attainder? It is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without trial. Its essence is the substitution of a legislative act for a judicial determination of guilt. What are the three characteristics of criminal law? 1. GENERAL 2. TERRITORIAL 3. PROSPECTIVE What does generality means? Criminal law is binding on all persons who live or sojourn in Philippine territory. What are its exceptions? Article 2 of the RPC says that provisions of the RPC shall be enforced within the Philippine Archipelago except as provided in the treaties and laws of preferential application. 1. Treaties or treaty stipulations Bases Agreement entered into by and between the RP and USA RP-US Visiting Forces Accord

2. Law of preferential application Republic Act 75 in favour of diplomatic representatives and their domestic servants

Article 14 of the New Civil Code provides that penal laws and those of public security and safety shall be obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in Philippine territory, subject to the principles of public international law and to treaty stipulations 1. Public international law Sovereigns and other chiefs of states Ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary, ministers resident, and charges daffaires What does territoriality means? Criminal laws undertake to punish crimes committed within Philippine territory. It means that as a rule, penal laws of the Philippines are enforceable only within its territory. What are its exceptions? Article 2 of the RPC 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 above-mentioned; 4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of their functions; 5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the laws of nations Crimes committed under RA 9372 otherwise known as the Human Security Act of 2007

What does prospective application means? Penal law cannot make an act punishable in a manner in which it was not punishable when committed. Article 366 of the RPC provides that crimes are punished under the laws in force at the time of their commission. What are its exceptions? Whenever a new statute dealing with crime establishes conditions more lenient or favourable to the accused But this exception has NO application where: 1. The new law is expressly made inapplicable to pending actions or existing causes of action 2. The offender is a habitual criminal under Article 22 of the RPC *** a person shall be deemed to be a HABITUAL DELINQUENT if within a period of TEN YEARS from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of serious physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa, or falsification, he is found GUILTY of any said crimes a third time or oftener What are the different effects of repeal of penal law? 1. If it makes the PENALTY LIGHTER in the NEW LAW, the NL shall be applied, EXCEPT when the offender is a habitual delinquent or when the NL is expressly made inapplicable to pending actions or existing causes of action 2. If it makes the PENALTY HEAVIER in the NEW LAW, the law in FORCE at the TIME OF THE COMMISSION of the offense shall be applied 3. If the NL TOTALLY REPEALS the existing law so that the act which was penalized under the old law is no longer punishable, the crime is OBLITERATED

1. What are the two theories in criminal law? a. Classical Theory b. Positivist Theory

5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the laws of nations EXCEPTIONS: as provided in

What are the characteristics of the classical theory? The basis is human free will to choose between good and evil thereby placing more stress upon the effect or result of the felonious act than upon the criminal himself. The purpose of the penalty is retribution. The RPC is generally GOVERNED by this theory. What are the characteristics of the positivist theory? The basis is the sum of social and economic phenomena which conditions man to do wrong in spite of or contrary to his/her own volition. The purpose is for rehabilitation. This is exemplified in the provisions on IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES and HABITUAL DELINQUENCY What is the scope of the application of the provisions of the RPC? GENERAL RULE: The provisions of the RPC 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 above-mentioned; 4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of their functions;

1. Treaties 2. Laws of preferential applications 3. Principles of Public International Law What must be understood when we say Philippine vessel or aircraft? It must be understood as that which is registered in the Philippine Bureau of Customs. It is the registration of the vessel or aircraft in accordance with the laws of the Philippines, not the citizenship of its owner, which makes it a Philippine ship or airship. A merchant ship is an extension of the territory of the country which owns it. A naval ship or airship is always reputed to be the territory itself of the country to which it belongs and cannot be subjected to the laws of another state. What are the two rules as to jurisdiction over crimes committed aboard foreign merchant vessel? 1. French Rule Crimes committed aboard foreign merchant vessels while in the territorial waters of another country are NOT triable in the courts of that country, unless their commission affects the peace and security of the territory or the safety of the state is endangered. 2. English Rule Crimes committed aboard foreign merchant vessels while in the territorial waters of another country are triable in that country, unless they

merely affect things within the vessel or they refer to the internal management thereof. Note: Mere possession of opium aboard a foreign merchant vessel IN TRANSIT is not triable in Philippine courts because that fact alone does not constitute a breach of public order. Smoking of opium aboard a foreign vessel constitutes a breach of public order because it brings about in this country those disastrous effects that our law contemplates avoiding What is a felony? FELONIES are acts and omissions punishable by law. (the Revised Penal Code) ACT means any bodily movement tending to produce some effect in the external world, it being unnecessary that the same be actually produced, as the possibility of its production is sufficient. It must be an OVERT ACT of that felony that is, an EXTERNAL ACT which has DIRECT CONNECTION with the felony intended to be committed. OMISSION means INACTION, the failure to perform a POSITIVE DUTY which one is bound to do. Thus, there must be a LAW requiring the doing or performance of an act.

When is there deceit or dolo? There is DECEIT when the act is performed with DELIBERATE INTENT or MALICE. When is there fault or culpa? There is FAULT when the wrongful act results from IMPRUDENCE, NEGLIGENCE, LACK OF FORESIGHT, or LACK OF SKILL. What are the elements of felonies? 1. There must be an ACT or OMISSION 2. The act or omission must be VOLUNTARY 3. The act or omission must be punishable by the RPC *** NULLUM CRIMEN, NULLA POENA SINE LEGE, there is no crime where there is no law punishing it 4. The act is performed or the omission incurred by means of DOLO or CULPA What are the two classification of felonies according to the means by which they are committed? 1. Intentional felonies by means of deceit (DOLO) REQUISITES: Freedom Intelligence Intent

2. Culpable felonies by means of fault (CULPA) How are felonies committed? Felonies are committed not only by means of DECEIT (dolo) but also by means of FAULT (culpa). REQUISITES: Freedom Intelligence Negligence (lack of foresight) or imprudence (lack of skill)

Distinguish intentional felonies from culpable felonies In intentional felonies, the act or omission is malicious or performed with deliberate intent or with malice, which must necessarily be voluntary. The offender has the intention to cause an injury to another. In culpable felony, there is no intent to commit a crime or cause an injury. The act performed is without malice and voluntary. What are the requisites of dolo or malice? 1. Freedom 2. Intelligence 3. Intent Note: Criminal intent and the will to commit a crime are always presumed to exist on the part of the person who executes an act which the law punishes, unless the contrary appears From the felonious act of the accused, freely and deliberately executed, the moral and legal presumption of a criminal and injurious intent arises conclusively and indisputably, in the absence of evidence to the contrary The maxim is: actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea a crime is not committed if the mind of the person performing to act complained be innocent. Thus, the presumption of criminal intent does not arise from the proof of the commission of an act which is not unlawful Accused is not criminally liable because his acts were not voluntary, for having acted in a dream; he had no criminal intent What is mistake of fact? Note:

It is a misapprehension of fact on the part of the person who caused injury to 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. Here, the act done by the accused would have constituted (1) a justifying circumstance under Article 11, (2) an absolutory cause, or (3) an involuntary act. What are the requisites of mistake of fact as a defense? 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 should be lawful 3. The mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the accused

There is an innocent mistake of fact without any fault or carelessness on the part of the accused, because, having no time or opportunity to make any further inquiry, and being pressed by circumstances to act immediately, the accused had no alternative but to take the facts as they appeared to him, and such facts justified his act of killing the deceased (US v. Ah Chong) When the accused is negligent, mistake of fact is not a defense. In mistake of fact, what is involved is lack of intent on the part of the accused. In felonies committed through negligence, there is not intent to consider, as it is replaced by imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill. Criminal intent is necessary in felonies committed by means of dolo because of the legal maxims: Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea

Actus me invite factus non est meus actus an act done by me

accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means. Note: One who commits an intentional felony is responsible for all the consequences which may naturally and logically result therefrom, whether foreseen or intended or not. What are the requisites of paragraph 1 Article 4? 1. That an intentional felony has been committed 2. That the wrong done to the aggrieved party be the direct, natural, and logical consequence of the felony committed by the offender Note: This only refers to intentional felonies. If what is committed is culpable felonies, the liability of the accused should be determined under Article 365 which defines and penalizes criminal negligence. When a person has not committed a felony, he is not criminally liable for the result which is not intended The causes which may produce a result different from that which the offender intended are: a. Error in personae mistake in the identity of the victim b. Aberration ictus mistake in the blow c. Praetor intentionem injurious result is greater than that intended

against my will is not my act Distinguish mala inse from mala prohibita In mala in se, the act is inherently wrong or wrong from the very beginning. Intent to commit the crime is essential. In mala prohibita, intent to commit the crime is not necessary, it is enough that there is intent to perpetrate the act prohibited and it is done freely and consciously. Note: When the doing of an act is prohibited by a special law, it is considered that the act is injurious to public welfare and the doing of the prohibited act is the crime itself When the acts are inherently immoral, they are mala in se, even if punished under special law If the act of a person violates the constitutional rights of another, even if it is mala prohibita, it is considered as mala in se Distinguish intent from motive Motive is the moving power which impels one to action for a definite result Intent is the purpose to use a particular means to effect such result. 4. How may criminal liability be incurred? Criminal liability shall be incurred: a. By any person committing a felony although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended b. By any person performing an act which would be an offense against person or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its

Any person who creates in anothers mind an immediate sense of danger, which causes the latter to do something resulting in the latters injuries, is liable for the resulting injuries.

The wrong done must be the direct, natural, and logical consequence of felonious act The offended party is not obliged to submit to a surgical operation to relieve the accused from the natural and ordinary results of his crime The felony committed must be the proximate cause of the resulting injury

When will the felony committed not considered the proximate cause of the resulting injury? a. There is an active force that intervened between the felony committed and the resulting injury, and is a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act of the accused b. The resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the victim

What is proximate cause? That cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred What is the proximate legal cause? That acting first and producing the injury, either immediately, or be setting other events in motion, all constituting a natural and continuous chain of events, each having a close casual connection with its immediate predecessor. What is efficient intervening cause? An active force that intervened between the felony committed and the resulting injury, and is a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act of the accused When is death presumed to be the natural consequence of physical injuries inflicted? When the following facts are established: a. That the victim at the time the physical injuries were inflicted was in normal health b. That death may be expected from the physical injuries inflicted c. That death ensured within a reasonable time Note: In impossible crime, the felony against persons or property should not be actually committed, for otherwise, he would be liable for that felony If the act performed would be an offense other than a felony against persons or against property, there is no impossible crime Since the offender in impossible crime intended to commit an offense against persons or against property, it must be shown that the actor performed the act with evil intent, that is, he must have the intent to do an injury to another Where the means employed is adequate and the result expected is not produced, it is not an impossible crime, but a frustrated felony What do you mean by impossible crime? Paragraph 2 of Article 4 defines an impossible crime and laid down its requisites. In addition, the act performed should not constitute a violation of another provision of the RPC. Note: Persons who are responsible for an act constituting a crime are also liable for all the consequences arising therefrom and inherent therein, other than those due to incidents entirely foreign to the act executed, or which originate through the fault or carelessness of the injured person

What is the penalty to be imposed for an impossible crime? Arresto mayor or a fine ranging from 200 to 500 pesos What is the basis for imposition of proper penalty for impossible crime? The court must take into consideration the social danger and the degree of criminality shown by the offender. What is the purpose of the law in punishing the impossible crime? To suppress criminal propensity or criminal tendencies; objectively, the offender has not committed a felony, but subjectively, he is a criminal. 5. What is the duty of the court in connection with acts which should be repressed but which are covered by the law? The court must render the property decision by dismissing the case and acquitting the accused. The judge must then make a report to the Chief Executive through the Secretary of Justice, stating the reasons which induce him to believe that the said act should be made the subject of penal legislation. This is based on the legal maxim nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege, that is, there is no crime if there is no law that punishes the act. Note: A court of law is no place for a protracted debate on the morality or propriety of the sentence, where the law itself provides for the sentence of death as a penalty in specific and well-defined instances. The discomfort faced by those forced by law to impose the death penalty is an ancient one, but it is a matter upon which judges have no choice. What is the duty of the court in cases of excessive penalties?

The court should not suspend the execution of the sentence. The judge should submit a statement to the Chief Executive through the Secretary of Justice, recommending executive clemency. 6. What are the three stages of a crime? a. Consummated b. Frustrated c. Attempted

When is a felony consummated? A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present. When is it frustrated? 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. When is it attempted? 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. What are the two stages in the development of a crime? Discuss. a. Internal acts b. External acts Preparatory acts

Ordinarily they are not punishable. But preparatory acts which are considered in themselves, by law, as independent crimes are punishable

same, with intent to kill, at the offended party, without however inflicting a mortal wound on the latter Raising a bolo as if to strike the offended party with it is not an overt act of homicide

Acts of execution They are punishable under the RPC What is an indeterminate offense? It is one where the purpose of the offender in performing an act is not certain. Its nature in relationship to its objective is ambiguous. What does spontaneous desistance connotes? That there be external acts Such external acts have direct connection with the crime intended to be committed It is an absolutory cause. The accused is not liable for attempted crime but liable for the crime he actually committed. Note: If the actor does not perform all the acts of execution by reason of his own spontaneous desistance, there is no attempted felony. The law does not punish him. It is a sort of reward granted by law to those who, having one foot on the verge of crime, heed the call of their conscience and return to the path of righteousness. The desistance should be made before all the acts of execution are performed. The desistance which exempts from criminal liability has reference to the crime intended to be committed, and has no reference to the crime actually committed by the offender before his desistance What do you mean by the subjective phase of the offense?

What are the elements of an attempted felony? 1. The offender commences the commission of the felony directly by overt acts

2. He does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony 3. The offenders act is not stopped by his own spontaneous desistance 4. The non-performance of all acts of execution was due to cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance What is an overt act? Is some physical activity or deed, indicating the intention to commit a particular crime, more than mere planning or preparation, which if carried to its complete termination following its natural course, without being frustrated by external obstacles nor by the voluntary desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete offense Note: Drawing or trying to draw a pistol is not an overt act of homicide. To constitute attempted homicide the person using a firearm must fire the

The phase where the offender has not done all acts of execution; he still has control of his act What do you mean by the objective phase of the offense?

The phase where the offender has done all acts of execution and there is nothing more to be done; he loses control of his act What are the elements of frustrated felony? 1. The offender performs all the acts of execution 2. All the acts performed would produce the felony as a consequence 3. But the felony is not produced 4. By reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator Note: If the wound inflicted is mortal, that is, sufficient to cause death, the actor performs the last act In homicide or murder, the crime is consummated if the victim dies. If the victim survives, the crime is frustrated It is necessary for the frustration of the crime that a mortal wound be inflicted, because then the wound could produce the felony as a consequence

2. The elements constituting the felony 3. The manner of committing the same Note: In arson, it is not necessary that the property is totally destroyed by fire. If any part of the house, no matter how small, is burned, the crime of arson is consummated. In robbery by the use of force upon things, since the offender must enter the building to commit the crime, he must be able to carry out of the building the thing taken to consummate the crime In robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons, the crime is consummated the moment the offender gets hold of the thing taken and/or in a position to dispose of it freely What are formal crimes? Consummated in one instant, no attempt What are material crimes?

What do you mean by independent of the will of the perpetrator? It may be the intervention of third persons who prevented the consummation of the offense or may be due to timely medical intervention. Distinguish frustrated felony from attempted felony In frustrated felony, the offender has reached the objective phase; in attempted felony, the offender has not passed the subjective phase How to determine whether the crime is only attempted or frustrated or it is consummated? The following have to be considered: 1. The nature of the offense

There are three stages of execution Is there an attempted or frustrated impossible crime? Since the offender in impossible crime has already performed the acts for the execution of the same, there could be no attempted impossible crime. In attempted felony, the offender has not performed all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence. There is no frustrated impossible crime, because the acts performed by the offender are considered as constituting a consummated offense. 7. When are light felonies punishable? Only when they have been consummated

In the commission of light felonies, the social wrong as well as the What is the exception? Those crimes committed against persons or properties are punishable even if attempted or frustrated. 8. When is there conspiracy? What are the light felonies punished by the RPC? a. Slight physical injuries b. Theft c. Alteration of boundary marks When is there proposal? There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a felony proposes its execution to some other person or persons. Are conspiracy and proposal to commit felony punishable? Reason. The general rule is no unless the law specially provides a penalty therefor. Notes: What is the reason for the exception? The commission of felonies against persons or property presupposes in the offender moral depravity. For that reason, even attempted or frustrated light felonies against persons or property are punishable. 9. What are the classifications of felonies according to their gravity? Who are criminally liable for light felonies? 1. Principals 2. Accomplices What is the reason why accessories are not liable for light felonies? a. Grave felonies b. Less grave felonies c. Light felonies The conspirators should not actually commit treason, coup detat, rebellion or sedition. If they commit so, they will be held liable for the crime actually committed. The conspiracy which they had before committing the crime is only a manner of incurring criminal liability. It is not a separate offense. d. Malicious mischief e. Intriguing against honor What is the reason for the general rule? Light felonies produce such light, such insignificant moral and material injuries that public conscience is satisfied with providing a light penalty for their consummation. If they are not consummated, the wrong done is so slight that there is no need of providing a penalty at all. It exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. individual prejudice is so small that penal sanction is deemed not necessary for accessories.

What are grave felonies? Those to which the law attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive (prision mayor to reclusion perpetua)

What are less grave felonies? Those which the law punishes with penalties which in their maximum period are correctional (destierro to prision correctional) What are light felonies? Those infractions of law for the commission of which the penalty is arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos or both, is provided 10. What offenses are not subject to the provisions of the RPC? Offenses which are or in the future may be punishable under special laws are not subject to the provisions of the RPC. The RPC shall be supplementary to such laws, unless the latter should specially provide the contrary. 11. What is imputability? 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. What is responsibility? The obligation of suffering the consequences of crime; it is the obligation of taking the penal and civil consequences of the crime What is guilt? An element of responsibility, for a man cannot be made to answer for the consequences of a crime unless he is guilty What do you mean by justifying circumstance? c.

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 Since the act is justified or lawful, there is no crime committed therefore there is no criminal and civil liability except in paragraph 4. Who are those who do not incur criminal liability? 1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstances concur; a. First. Unlawful aggression. b. 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 his relatives by affinity in the same degrees and those 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 revocation 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 not act which causes damage to another, provided that the following requisites are present; a. First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists; b. Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it; c. 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. What are the elements of self-defense? a. Unlawful aggression Is an indispensable requisite. There can be no self defense, complete or incomplete, unless the victim has committed an unlawful aggression against the person defending himself It may either be: Actual assault or actual attack Threatened with an attack in an immediate and imminent manner In order to consider that unlawful aggression was actually committed, it is necessary that an attack or material aggression, an offensive act positively determining the intent of the aggressor to cause an injury shall have been made. It must be unlawful Under the NCC, a person may use force to protect his property; and if in protecting his property, such person uses force to prevent its being

taken by another, the owner of the property is not an unlawful aggressor, because he is merely exercising a right There is unlawful aggression when the peril to ones life, limb, or right is either actual or imminent The person defending himself must have been attacked with actual physical force or actual use of weapon It presupposes an actual, sudden, and unexpected attack, or imminent danger thereof, and not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude Slap on the face is an unlawful aggression because the face represents a person and his dignity, slapping it is a serious personal attack Retaliation is different from self- defense. In retaliation, the aggression that was begun by the injured party already ceased to exist when the accused attacked him. In self-defense, the aggression still existed when the aggressor was injured or disabled by the person making the defense. (the person insulted or injured became the offender, and the insult or injury should be considered only as a provocation mitigating his liability) The attack made by the deceased aggressor and the killing of the deceased by the person defending himself should succeed each other without appreciable interval of time. Under such circumstances, the person defending himself could not be expected to have acted with all the coolness of a person under normal condition. Uppermost in his mind at the time must have been the fact that his life was in danger and that to save himself, he had to do something to stop the aggression. He had no time nor occasion for deliberation and cool thinking because it was imperative for him to act on the spot. The unlawful aggression must come, directly or indirectly, from the person who was attacked by the accused

The nature, character, location, and extent of wound of the accused allegedly inflicted by the injured party may belie claim of self-defense When unlawful aggression which has begun no longer exists because the aggressor runs away, the one making a defense has no more right to kill or even to wound the former aggressor

Whether or not the means employed is reasonable, will depend upon the nature and quality of the weapon used by the aggressor, his physical condition, character, size, and other circumstances, and those of the person defending himself, and also the place and occasion of the assault

Retreat to take more advantageous position, unlawful aggression is considered still continuing and the one making a defense has a right to pursue him in his retreat and to disable him

Perfect equality between the weapon used by the one defending himself and that of the aggressor is not required because the person assaulted does not have sufficient tranquillity of mind to think, to calculate, and to choose which weapon to use

There is no unlawful aggression in concerted fight; the challenge to fight must be accepted Defense of property is not of such importance as right to life and defense of property can be invoked as a justifying circumstance only when it is couple with an attack on the person of one entrusted with said property

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, 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.

Threat to inflict real injury as unlawful aggression only when the act is offensive and positively strong, showing the wrongful intent of the aggressor to cause an injury

b. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it There be necessity of the course of action taken by the person making a defense and there be a necessity of the means used. Both must be reasonable Circumstances of time and place The person defending himself cannot be expected to think clearly so as to control his blow The accused was not in a position to reflect coolly or to wait after each blow to determine the effects thereof When the aggression is so sudden that there is no time left to the one making the defense to determine what course of action to take

c.

Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself The exercise of a right cannot give rise to sufficient provocation It should be proportionate to the act of aggression and adequate to stir the aggressor to its commission It must be proximate and immediate to the act of aggression

What are the elements of defense of relatives? a. Unlawful aggression b. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it c. In case the provocation was given by the person attacked, the one making the defense had no part therein

What are the elements of defense of stranger? a. Unlawful aggression b. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it c. The person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive What are the requisites for avoidance of greater evil or injury? a. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists b. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it The instinct of self-preservation will always make one feel that his own safety is of greater importance than that of another The greater evil should not be brought about by the negligence or imprudence of the actor The evil which brought about the greater evil must not result from a violation of law by the actor c. There be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it What are the requisites for fulfilment of duty or lawful exercise of right or office? a. That the accused acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office b. 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 Although an officer in making a lawful arrest is justified in using such force as is reasonably necessary to secure and detain the offender, overcome his resistance, prevent his escape, recapture him if he escapes and protects himself from bodily harm, yet he is never c.

justified in using unnecessary force or in treating him with wanton violence, or in resorting to dangerous means when the arrest could be effected otherwise. In the exercise of lawful right, no need for unlawful aggression against the person charged with the protection of the property What is the doctrine of self-help? The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this purpose, he may use such force as may be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his property. What are the requisites for obedience to an order issued by superior for some lawful purpose? a. That an order has been issued by the superior b. That such order must be for some lawful purpose When the order is not for a lawful purpose, the subordinate who obeyed it is criminally liable A subordinate who obeyed the illegal order of his superior in good faith, without being aware of their illegality, without any fault or negligence on his part, is not liable because he had no criminal intent and he was not negligent That the means used by the subordinate to carry out said order is lawful

12. What is an exempting circumstance? Those grounds for exemption from punishment based on the complete absence/ deprivation of intelligence, freedom of action, or intent, or on the absence of negligence on the party of the accused

What is the basis? Based on the complete absence/ deprivation of intelligence, freedom of action, or intent, or on the absence of negligence on the party of the accused What are the circumstances which 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. Who is an imbecile? One who while advanced in age, has a mental development comparable to that of children between two and seven years of age; one deprived completely of reason or discernment and freedom of the will at the time of committing the crime What is insanity? It exists when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act, that is, the accused is deprived of reason, he acts without the least discernment, because there is a complete absence of the power to discern, or that there is a total deprivation of freedom of the will

3. A person over fifteen years of age and under eighteen, unless he has acted with discernment, in which case, such minor shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Art. 80 of this Code. When such minor is adjudged to be criminally irresponsible, the court, in conformably with the provisions of this and the preceding paragraph, shall commit him to the care and custody of his family who shall be charged with his surveillance and education otherwise, he shall be committed to the care of some institution or person mentioned in said Art. 80. What is discernment? Mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong, and such capacity may be known and should be determined by taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances afforded by the records of each case, the very appearance, the very attitude, the very comportment and behaviour of said minor, not only before and during the commission of the act, but also after and even during the trial 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. a. A person is performing a lawful act b. With due care c. He causes an injury to another by mere accident Repeated blows negate claim of wounding by mere accident

d. Without fault or intention of causing it 2. A person fifteen years of age and under What is an accident?

Something that happens outside the sway of our will, and although it comes about through some act of our will, lies beyond the bounds of humanly foreseeable consequences 5. Any person who act under the compulsion of irresistible force. a. That the compulsion is by means of physical force b. That the physical force must be irresistible Must produce such an effect upon the individual that, in spite of all the resistance, it reduces him to a mere instrument and as such, incapable of committing a crime The duress, force, fear, or intimidation must be present, imminent, and impending and of such a nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the act is not done A threat of future injury is not enough The compulsion must be of such a character as to leave no opportunity to the accused for escaped or self-defense in equal combat

If controllable, it is only mitigating The compulsion must be of such a character as to leave no opportunity to the accused for escaped or self-defense in equal combat

Should not be speculative, fanciful and remote

d. The fear must be real and imminent e. The fear of an injury is greater than or at least equal to that committed Distinguish irresistible force from uncontrollable fear Irresistible force the offender uses violence or physical force to compel another person to commit a crime Uncontrollable fear the offender employs intimidation or threat in compelling another to commit a crime 7. Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented

c.

That the physical force must come from a third person Irresistible force can never consist in an impulse or passion or obfuscation. It must consist of an extraneous force coming from a third person

by some lawful insuperable cause. a. That an act is required by law to be done b. That a person fails to perform such act c. That his failure to perform such act was due to some lawful or insuperable cause

6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury. a. That the threat which causes the fear is of an evil greater than or at least equal to, that which he is required to commit b. That it promises an evil of such gravity and imminence that the ordinary man would have succumbed to it c. Existence of uncontrollable fear Examples of absolutory causes a. Justifying circumstances What are absolutory causes? Those where the act committed is a crime but for reasons of public policy and sentiment there is no penalty imposed

b. Exempting circumstances c. Spontaneous desistance during attempted stage d. Accessories exempt from criminal liability relative of the principal e. Legal grounds for arbitrary detention f. Legal grounds for trespass g. Light felony is only attempted or frustrated and is not against persons or property h. The crime of theft, swindling, or malicious mischief is committed against a relative i. j. Instigation Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances

In entrapment, a person has planned, or is about to commit a crime and ways and means are resorted to by a public officer to trap and catch the criminal. Entrapment is not a defense.

13. What are the mitigating circumstances? Those which, if present in the commission of the crime, do not entirely free the actor from criminal liability but serve only to reduce the penalty. What is the basis? Based on the diminution of either freedom of action, intelligence, or intent, or on the lesser perversity of the offender

What is instigation? In instigation, a public officer or a private detective indices an innocent person to commit a crime and would arrest him upon or after the commission of the crime by the latter. It is an absolutory cause. If the one who made the instigation is a private individual, not performing public function, both he and the one induced are criminally liable for the crime committed: the former as principal by induction, and the latter as principal by direct participation. Principals by direct participation Those who take a direct part in the execution of the act Principals by induction Those who directly force (irresistible force, uncontrollable fear) or induce others to commit a crime What is entrapment? What are the classes of mitigating circumstance? a. Ordinary Article 13, par 1-10

b. Privileged Penalty to be imposed upon a person under 18 years of age (Article 68) Penalty to be imposed when the crime committed is not wholly excusable (Article 69) Rules on the application of penalties which contain three periods (article 64) Distinguish ordinary from privilege a. Ordinary susceptible of being offset by any aggravating circumstance; while privilege cannot be offset by aggravating circumstance b. Ordinary if not offset, produces only the effect of applying the penalty provided by law for the crime in its minimum period, in case of divisible

penalty while privileged mitigating produces the effect of imposing upon the offender the penalty lower by one or two degrees than that provided by law for the crime What are those mitigating circumstances? 1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the requisites necessary to justify or to exempt from criminal liability in the respective cases are not attendant. Except paragraph 1 and 2 of Article 12 In defense, unlawful aggression must be present it being an indispensable requisite

4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party immediately preceded the act. a. That the provocation must be sufficient Adequate to excite a person to commit the wrong and must accordingly be proportionate to its gravity It depends upon the act constituting the provocation, the social standing of the person provoked, the place, and the time when the provocation is made b. That it must originate from the offended party c. That the provocation must be immediate to the act, to the commission of the crime by the person who is provoked When there is an interval of time between the provocation and the commission of the crime, the conduct of the offended party could not have excited the accused to the commission of the crime, he having had time to regain his reason to exercise self-control The threat should not be offensive and positively strong, because, if it is, the threat to inflict real injury is an unlawful aggression which may give rise to self-defense 5. That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave offense to the one committing the felony (delito), his spouse, ascendants, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees. a. That there be a grave offense done to the one. Consideration shall be made on the social standing of the person, the place, and the time when the insult was made It must be directed to the accused

2. That the offender is under eighteen year of age or over seventy years. In the case of the minor, he shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Art. 80. 3. That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed. Praeter intentionem The weapon used, the part of the body injured, the injury inflicted, and the manner it is inflicted may show that the accused intended the wrong committed Inflicting of five stab wounds in rapid succession negates the pretense of lack of intention to cause so serious an injury It is the intention of the offender at the moment when he is committing the crime which is considered In crimes against persons who do not die as a result of the assault, the absence of the intent to kill reduces the felony to mere physical injuries, but it does not constitute a mitigating circumstance Applies only to intentional felonies

b. That the felony is committed in vindication of such grave offense. A lapse of time is allowed between the vindication and the doing of the grave offense The influence thereof, by reason of its gravity, and the circumstances under which it was inflicted, lasted until the moment the crime was committed Distinguish provocation from vindication 1. In provocation it is made directly only to the person committing the felony; while in vindication it may be committed to relatives 2. In provocation the cause that brought about it need not be a grave offense; while in vindication it must 3. In provocation it is necessary that it immediately preceded the act; while in vindication it admits of an interval of time between the grave offense done by the offended party and the commission of the crime by the accused. Reason for the difference This greater leniency in the case of vindication is due to the fact that it concerns the honour of a person, an offense which is more worthy of consideration than mere spite against the one giving the provocation or threat.

a. There be an act, both unlawful and sufficient to produce such a condition of mind The crime committed by the accused must be provoked by prior unlawful or unjust acts of the injured party Exercise of a right or a fulfilment of a duty is not proper source of passion or obfuscation b. That said act which produced the obfuscation was not far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of time, during which the perpetrator might recover his normal equanimity The crime committed must be the result of a sudden impulse of natural and uncontrollable fury Note: Passion or obfuscation must arise from lawful sentiments It must originate from legitimate feelings and not those which arise from vicious, unworthy, and immoral passions Rape is not passion or obfuscation, it being in a spirit of lawlessness No passion or obfuscation in a spirit of revenge The feeling of resentment resulting from rivalry in amorous relations with a woman is a powerful instigator of jealousy and prone to produce anger and obfuscations The cause producing passion or obfuscation must come from the offended party It may arise from causes existing only in the honest belief of the offender Provocation and obfuscation arising from one and the same cause should be treated as only one mitigating circumstance but where there are other facts, although closely connected with the fact upon which

6. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation. a. The accused acted upon an impulse b. The impulse must be so powerful that it naturally produced passion or obfuscation in him

one circumstance is premised, the other circumstance may be appreciated as based on the other fact. Vindication of grave offense cannot co-exist with passion and obfuscation for one singe fact cannot be made the basis of different modifying circumstances It cannot co-exist with treachery because while in passion or obfuscation, the offender loses his reason and self-control, in treachery, the mode of attack must be consciously adopted. One who loses his reason and self-control cannot deliberately employ a particular means, method, or form of attack in the execution of a crime It cannot co-exist with evident premeditation. The latter means that the execution of the criminal act must be preceded by calm thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during the space of time sufficient to arrive at a composed judgment What is passion or obfuscation? Causes naturally producing in a person powerful excitement that he loses his reason and self-control, thereby diminishing the exercise of his willpower 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; For voluntary surrender: a. That the offender had not been actually arrested When the warrant had not been served or not returned unserved because the accused cannot be located, the surrender is mitigating c.

The law does not require that surrender be prior to the order of arrest

b. That the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or to the latters agents Person in authority One directly vested with jurisdiction that is a public officer who has the power to govern and execute laws whether as an individual or as a member of some court or governmental corporation, board, or corporation Agent of a person in authority One who by direct provision of the law, or by election or by appointment by competent authority, is charged with the maintenance of public order and the protection and security of life and property and any person who comes to the aid of persons in authority That the surrender was voluntary It must be spontaneous in such a manner that it shows the interest of the accused to surrender unconditionally to the authorities either because he acknowledged his guilt or because he wishes to save them the trouble and expenses necessarily incurred in his search and capture The conduct of the accused, not his intention alone, after the commission of the offense determines the spontaneity of the surrender Accused must actually surrender his own person to the authorities, admitting complicity in the crime Surrender of weapons cannot be equated with voluntary surrender

Intention to surrender without actually surrendering is not mitigating There is spontaneity even if the surrender is induced by fear of retaliation by the victims relatives When the offender imposed a condition or acted with external stimulus, his surrender is not voluntary

a. That the illness of the offender must diminish the exercise of his will-power Diseases of pathological state that trouble the conscience or will Killing of the witch was for public good

b. That such illness should not deprive the offender of consciousness of his acts 10. And, finally, any other circumstances of a similar nature and analogous to those above mentioned. Note:

Note: The surrender must be by reason of the commission of the crime for which the defendant is prosecuted For plea of guilt: a. That the offender spontaneously confessed his guilt b. That the confession of guilt was made in open court, that is before the competent court that is to try the case c. That the confession of guilt was made prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution Pleas must be made before trial begins Plea of guilty on appeal, not mitigating Withdrawal of plea of not guilty and pleading guilty before presentation of evidence by prosecution is still mitigating Change of plea should be made at the first opportunity

Over 60 years old with failing eye sight similar to over 70 years of age mentioned in Art 13, par 2 Outraged feeling of owner of animal taken for ransom analogous to vindication of a grave offense Outraged feeling of creditor similar to passion and obfuscation Impulse of jealous feeling similar to passion and obfuscation Manifestations of battered wife syndrome analogous to an illness that diminishes the exercise of will-power Esprit de corps similar to passion and obfuscation Voluntary restitution of stolen property similar to voluntary surrender Extreme poverty and necessity similar to incomplete justification based on state of necessity Testifying for the prosecution analogous to plea of guilty

8. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering some physical defect which thus restricts his means of action, defense, or communications with his fellow beings. 9. Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the willpower of the offender without however depriving him of the consciousness of his acts.