CIRCUMSTANCES (part 1)

DISTINCTION bet. JUSTIFYING-EXEMPTING

J: affects the act, not the actor                                                        
E: affects the actor, not the act
J: act is within the bounds of the law, hence, it is legitimate and lawful in the eyes of the law   E: act is actually wrongful 
BUT the actor acted without voluntariness. He is a mere tool/instrument.
J: No crime – No criminal                                                                         
E: there is crime – No criminal
J: No criminal or civil liability                                                                       
E: No criminal liability only civil liability (Art.12 (4) (7) neither criminal or civil)
J: Intentional Felonies Only                                                               
E: Can be Intentional or Culpable Felonies
J: If the principal invoke this circumstance the accomplice and accessory will be benefited                                                                           E: the person who invoke will be benefited
---------------------------------------------------
ARTICLE 11. JUSTIFYING

I. Self- Defense (Personal)
Rights:                                                                                      
 A. Defense of Person                                                     
B. Defense of rights protected by law (property)                                                                         
C. Defense of Chastity

ELEMENTS:                                                                       
A. Unlawful Aggression – must not be a lawful one; must exist at the time the defense is made. 
B. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it
         Requisites:                                                              
1) Means were used to prevent or repel                       
2) Means must be necessary and there is no other way to prevent it or repel it                               
3) Means must be reasonable – generally proportionate to the force of the aggressor

C. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself

II. Defense of Relative
Elements:                                                                             
A. Unlawful aggression                                                      
B. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the attack              
C. Provocation was given by the person attacked, that the person making the defense had no part in such provocation

Relatives entitled:                                                          
1. Spouse                                                                         
2. Ascendants                                                                            
3. Descendants                                                                          
4. Legitimate, natural or adopted brother/sister                                                           
5. Relatives by affinity in the same degree (2nd)                  
6. Relatives by consanguinity within the 4th degree

III. Defense of Stranger
Elements:                                                                                     
A. Unlawful Aggression                                                      
B. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevents or repel the attack                     
C. the person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment or other evil motive

IV. State of Necessity
Requisites:                                                               
A. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists                                                                         
B. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it                                                           
C. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it

V. Fulfillment of Duty or Lawful exercise of a right or office
Elements:                                                                   
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 offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance of the duty, or the lawful exercise such right or office.

VI. Obedience to a superior order
Elements:                                                                 
A. There is an order by superior                                                                        
B. The order is for a legal purpose                                                  
C. The means used to carry out said order is lawful
--------------------------------------------------------
Article 12 . EXEMPTING
Basis: The exemption from punishment is based on the complete absence of Intelligence, Freedom of action, or on the absence of negligence on the part of the accused.

I. An Imbecile or Insane Person, unless the latter acted during lucid interval
Requisites:                                                                      
A. Offender is an imbecile                                                 
B. Offender was insane at the time of the commission of the crime

Basis: Complete absence of intelligence, and element of voluntariness

Test for exemption for grounds of insanity:                                 
A. Test of cognition – whether accused acted with complete deprivation of intelligence in committing said crime.                                                         
B. Test of volition – whether accused acted in total deprivation of freedom of will.

II. Person under nine years of age (9 or less)
**A child 15 yrs of age or under is exempt from criminal liability under RA No. 9344                
 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006)

**even with discernment
Minority: Requisites                                                        
A. Offender is 15 yrs or under at the time of the commission of the crime (age of absolute irresponsibility)

Basis: complete absence of intelligence

III. Person Over nine and under 15 acting without Discernment
Presumption: The minor committed the crime without discernment
Discernment – mental capacity to fully appreciate the consequences of the unlawful act, which is shown by the:                                             
1. Manner the crime was committed                          
2. Conduct of the offender after its commission

**Under RA No. 9344 a minor over 15 but below 18 who acted without discernment is exempt from criminal liability

Suspension of sentence requires:                                   
1. The crime committed should not be punishable by reclusion perpetua or death penalty 
2. The offender should not have been given the benefit of a suspended sentence before. (This means he is a first timer)                                         
3. He must be below 18 (youthful offender)

IV. Accident without fault or Intention of causing it
Basis: lack of negligence and intent
Elements:                                                                     
1. A person is performing a lawful act                        
2. Exercise of due care                                              
3. He causes injury to another by mere accident                                                                    
4. Without fault or intention of causing it

V. Irresistible Force
Basis: Complete absence of freedom, an element of voluntariness
Elements:                                                                              
1. That the compulsion is by means of physical force                                                                                       
2. That the physical force must be irresistible                   
3. That the physical force must come from a third person
**Irresistible Force = mere instrument

VI. Uncontrollable Fear
Basis: complete absence of freedom
Elements:                                                                   
1. That the threat which causes the fear is of an evil greater that, or at least equal to that which he is required to commit                                             
2. That it promises an evil of such gravity and imminence that the ordinary man would have succumbed to it.

UF – offender employs intimidation or threat in compelling another to commit a crime.
Duress – use of violence or physical force
**any act done by me against my will is not my act.

VII. Insuperable Cause
Basis: acts without intent, the third condition of voluntariness in intentional felony
Elements:                                                                         
1. An act is required by law to be done                         
2. A person fails to perform such act                         
3. His failure to perform such act was due to some lawful or insuperable cause
-----------------------------------------------------------
ABSOLUTORY CAUSE – act committed is a crime but for some reason of public policy and sentiment, there is no penalty imposed.

**the effect is to absolve the offender from criminal liability. (same effect as exempting)

Examples:                                                                              
1. Spontaneous desistance (Art.6)                                       
2. Accessories exempting from criminal liability (Art. 20)                                                           
3. Profiting one’s self or assisting offenders to profit by the effects of the crime (Art.19 (1))               
4. Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances (Art. 247)                     
5. Persons exempt from criminal liability from theft, swindling, malicious mischief (Art 332)                  
6. Instigation                                                                           
7. In seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness, and rape, marriage of the offended party shall extinguish criminal liability (Art 344)                          
                                          
**Entrapment is NOT an absolutory cause. A buy-bust operation conducted in connection with illegal drug-related offenses is a form of entrapment. 





Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

People vs. Sunico, et al [C.A., 50 o.g. 5880]

FACTS: The accused were election inspectors and poll clerks whose duty among others was to transfer the names of excess voters in other precincts to the list of a newly created precinct.Several voters were omitted in the list.Because their names were not in the list, some of them were not allowed to vote. The accused were prosecuted for violation of Secs. 101 and 103 of the Revised Election Code. The accused claimed that they made the omission in good faith.The trial court seemed to believe that notwithstanding the fact that the accused committed in good faith the serious offense charged, the latter are criminally responsible therefor, because such offense is malum prohibitum, and, consequently, the act constituting the same need not be committed with malice or criminal intent to be punishable. ISSUE: Is the act of the accused merely a mala prohibita? HELD: The acts of the accused cannot be merely mala prohibita - they are mala in se . The omission or failure to include a voter’s...
Read more

US v. Serapio [23 P 584]

FACTS: Defendant was charged with the crime of libel. Upon said complaint the defendant was duly arraigned. Upon arraignment the defendant, by his attorneys, presented the following demurrer:I. The facts alleged in the complaint do not constitute a crime. II. It appears from the allegation in the complaint that if there were a crime it has prescribed. With reference to the second ground, counsel for the defense maintains that the crime has prescribed under the provisions of the laws in force in the Islands and supports such conclusion by asserting that in the absence of a definite provision in Act No. 277 of the Philippine Commission, which fixes the time during which the penal action arising from the crime of libel may be exercised, the time which article 131 of the Penal Code fixes for the prescription of the crimes of calumny and insults is strictly applicable. Against this contention of the defense, the Attorney-General and the private prosecutor maint...
Read more

People v Macatanda [109 S 35]

FACTS: Charged with and convicted on a plea of guilty, in the Court of First Instance of Lanao del Norte, Branch IV in Iligan City, for the crime of cattle rustling, Saglala Macatanda. From the judgment of conviction, Saglala Macatanda (hereinafter referred to as appellant) appealed direct to this Court. The Solicitor General comes up with a reply that Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code does not apply to penalties prescribed by special laws. He considers P.D. 533, otherwise known as "Anti- Cattle Rustling Law of 1974" as a special law, and in accordance with existing rulings, 8 the penalty should not be governed by the Revised Penal Code. ISSUE: Whether the contention of the Solicitor-General is valid. RULING: The court do not agree with the Solicitor General that P.D. 533 is a special law, entirely distinct from and unrelated to the Revised Penal Code. From the nature of the penalty imposed which is in terms of the classification and duration of penalties as prescribe...
Read more