Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No criminal liability
are punishable only in the case in which the law specifically provides a penalty
therefor.(art 8, par. 1)
Art. 115. Conspiracy to commit treason.
Art 136. Conspiracy to commit coup detat, rebellion or insurrection
Art. 141. Conspiracy to commit sedition.
CONSPIRACY
- Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement
concerning the commission of felony and decide to commit it. The essence of
conspiracy is unity of action and purpose. Its elements, like the physical acts
constitution the crime itself, must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Indications of conspiracy
- When two or more persons aim their acts towards the accomplishment of
the same unlawful object, each doing a part so that their acts, though
apparently independent were in fact connected and cooperative indicating
closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiment, conspiracy
may be inferred, and where there is conspiracy, the act of one is deemed the
act of all. ( Pp vs Aleta)
One and the same purpose
- However, in determining whether conspiracy exists, it is not sufficient that
the attack be joint and simultaneous for simultaneousness does not of itself
demonstrate the concurrence of will or unity of action and purpose which
are the bases if the responsibility of the assailants. What is determinative is
proof establishing that the accused were animated by one and the same
purpose.
ART. 10
1st clause. The RPC is not intended to supersede Special Penal Laws.
2nd clause. The RPC is supplementary to special laws, unless the special law
provides otherwise.
Pp vs. Concillado
- The most important among all the elements is xxx unlawful aggression.
Unlawful aggression must be proved first in order for self-defense to be
successfully pleaded, whether complete or incomplete. There can be
no self-defense unless there was unlawful aggression from the person
injured or killed by the accused; for otherwise, there is nothing to
prevent or repel.
Aggression must be unlawful
- It cannot be said that there was a previous unlawful aggression...
- taking into consideration the fact that the purpose of the deceased in so
doing was to succeed in capturing and arresting the appellant
Pp vs. Merced
- ...that assault was natural and lawful, for the reason that it was made by a
deceived and offended husband in order to defend his honor and rights by
punishing the offender of his honor, and if he had killed his wife and the
other defendant, he would have exercised a lawful right (Art. 247)
Aggression must be actual
- An actual assault, or
- Threat of an assault.
2nd Requisite: Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;
Perfect equality is not enough.
Rational Equivalence
- Nature and quality of the weapon used;
- Physical condition, character, and size;
- Other circumstances of both aggressor and person defending himself.
- Place and occasion of assault.
Rational Equivalence, Raitonale.
- Because this justifying circumstances is borne by necessity and is resorted
only in extreme situations or emergencies, the person defending himself is
not expected to think coolly and clearly. The person defending is, therefore,
not expect to control his blow or draw a distinction as to the injury that
would result after a blow.
US v. Mendoza
- The character of this weapon is such that in opinion the defendant could not
then have reasonably believed that it was necessary to kill his assailant in
order to repel the attack.
- It is an instrument shaped like a small chisel (escoplo) with no point or
cutting edge on either side, and is used for the purpose of taking out the
contents of betel nuts or the like.
Us v. Mack
- Court not reasonably be excepted to take the chance that mere ordinary
force would be used in striking or that the blow would be given upon some
protected part of his body, or that the cutting edge of the blade was not keen
enough to give him his death blow.
- The reasonable and natural thing for him to do under the circumstances was
to fire at the body of his opponent, and thus make sure of his own life.
- Not every wound which proves fatal is sufficient to stop an enemys attack,
and the accused and his assailant were so close at hand that until the
assailant fell to the ground it can be said that the accused was out of danger.
Even a wounded man with a drawn bolo in his right hand might prove to be
no mean antagonist at close quarters.
Physical condition, character and size of the opposing parties.
- One is not required, when hard pressed, to draw fine distinctions as to the
extent of the injury which a reckless and infuriated assailant might probably
inflict upon him.
Private individual vs. law enforcement officer
- Private individual prevent or repel aggression.
- Law enforcement officer overcome his opponent
Pp v Genosa
First, each of the phases of the cycle of violence must be proven to have
characterized at least two battering episodes between the appellant and
her intimate partner.
Second, the final acute battering episode preceding the killing of the
batterer must have produced in the battered persons mind an actual
fear of an imminent harm from her batterer and an honest belief that she
needed to use force in order to save her life.
Third, at the time of the killing, the batterer must have posed probable
not necessary immediate and actual - grave harm to the accused based
on the history of the violence.
DEFENSE OF RELATIVES
spouse
ascendant
descendant
legitimate, natural, or adopted bro or sis
relatives by affinity in the same degrees
relatives by consanguinity within 4th civil degree
Requisites:
unlawful aggression
reasonable necessity
in case there is sufficient provocation, the person defensing had no part
Us vs. Esmedia
inasmuch as it has been shown that they inflicted these wounds upon him in
defense of their father who was fatally wounded at the time. They honestly
believed, ad had good grounds upon which to found their belief, that
Santiago would continue his attack upon his father.
Pp v Toring
It cannot be said, therefore, that in attacking Samuel, Toring was impelled by
pure compassion or beneficence or the lawful desire to avenge the
immediate wrong inflicted on his cousin, Rather, he was motivated by
revenge.
DEFENSE OF STRANGERS
unlawful aggression
reasonable necessity
the person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment or other evil
motive
Cabuslay v Pp
It bears repeating that the nature and number of wounds inflicted by the
accused are constantly and unremittingly considered as important indicia
which disprove a plea for self-defense or defense of stranger because
they demonstrate a determinate effort to kill the victim and not just
defend oneself. In the instant case, Paquitos wounds serve to tell us that
petitioner was induced by revenge, resentment or other evil motive and
that he was set on killing the victim.
Pp v. Ricohermoso
was designed to insure the killing of Gemaniano de Leon without any
risk to his assailants.
Tan v. Standard Vacuum
The damage caused to the plaintiff was brought about mainly because
the desire of driver Julito Domingo to avoid greater evil or harm.
Ty vs pp
the evil sought to be avoided is merely expected or anticipated. If the evil
sought to be avoided is merely expected or may happen in the future this
defense is not applicable.
FULFILLMENT OF DUTY
The prevailing jurisprudence is in favor of policemen and guard who
shoot prisoners who attempt to escape.
Cabanlig
a policeman in the performance of duty is justified in using such force as
is reasonably necessary to secure and detain the offender.
OBEDIENCE TO AN ORDER ISSUED FOR SOME LAWFUL PURPOSE
Requisites:
An order has been issued by superior
The order must be some lawful purpose
The means used to carry out the order must be lawful.
Pp vs. Ambal
A imbecile is a person marked by mental deficiency while an insane
person is one who has an unsound mind or suffers from mental disorder.
An insane person may have lucid interval but an imbecile does not
MINORITY
RA 9344, Juvenile and Justice Welfare Act (May 20, 2006)
Material ages for criminal responsibility: 15 years old
New concepts:
Age of criminal responsibility
Effects
Presumptions
Age of criminal responsibility
A child 15 years of age and under at the time of the commission of the
offense is exempt from criminal liability.
A child is deemed to be fifteen (15) years of age on the day of the
fifteenth anniversary of his/her birthdate. ( Sec. 3, RA 10630)
Child is subject to intervention. Intervention refers to a series of
activities, which are designed to address issues that caused the child to
commit an offense.
15 years and one day is considered above 15.
Sec 3 (1) RA 9344
Intervention refers to a series of activities which are designed to address
issues that caused the child to commit an offense. It may take the form of
an individualized treatment program which may include counseling skills
training, education, and other activities that will enhance his
psychological, emotional and psycho-social well-being.
Child 15 or below, initial contact which child must:
Release parents, guardian or nearest relative.
Notify LSWDO, determine the appropriate programs
O/W: NGO, Barangay, Local SWD off or DSWD.
Above 15 but below 18
Without discernment child is exempt but subject to intervention
With discernment subject to appropriate proceedings i.e. diversion
Note: No exemption form civil liability.
Discernment
Discernment is the mental capacity to understand the difference between
right and wrong.
It may be shown by:
Manner of committing a crime
Conduct of offender
Appearance of the minor
Attitude
Comportment
Behavior, before, during and after the trial.
Determination of age
- Birth certificate
- Baptismal certificate
- Other pertinent document
*In the absence of the documents mentioned:
- Testimony of the child or other persons
- Physical appearance
- Other relevant evidence
Imposable penalty
Not more than 6 years
- Mediation, family conferencing and conciliation if appropriate ( where there
is a private offended party
- In victimless crimes, diversion or rehabilitation
More than 6 years
- Diversion by the court
Sec 20-a Serious crimes committed by children who are exempt from criminal
responsibility
- above 12 up to 15 who commits parricide, murder. Infanticide, kidnapping, and
serious illegal detention where the victim is killed or raped, robbery, with homicide or
rape, destructive arson rape, or carnapping where the driver or occupant is killed or
raped or offenses under RA 9165 punishable by more than 12 years of imprisonment
neglected child under PD 603 mandatorily placed in a special facility within the youth
care faculty of Bahay pag-asa called the intensive juvenile intervention and support
center.
ACCIDENT
- An accident is something that happens outside the swat of our will, and
although it comes about through some act of our will, lies beyond the bounds of
humanly foreseeable consequence. (Pp v. Agliday)
Elements:
- Performance of a lawful act
- With due care
- Injury is caused to another by mere accident
- There is no fault or intention of causing the injury
Pp vs Genita
- He must show with clear and convincing proofs that: 1) he was performing a
lawful act with due care; 2) the injury caused was by a mere accident and 3)
he had no fault or intention of causing the injury.
Elements:
- Compulsion is by physical force
- The physical force is irresistible
- The physical force must come from the third person.
Why exempted?
- Because he does not act with freedom
- Reduce him to a mere instrument who acts not only without will but against
his will
- 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
IMPULSE OF AN UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR OF AN EQUAL OR GREATER INJURY
Elements:
Insuperable cause
- Distance and available means of transportation
- Sever dizziness and extreme debility
ABSOLUTORY CAUSE
- Instances where the act committed is a crime but for reasons of public policy
and sentiment there is no penalty imposed.
Instigation is an absolutory cause.
- Human nature is frail enough at best and requires no encouragement in
wrongdoing. If we cannot assist another, and prevent him from committing
crime, we should at least abstain from leading him into temptation.
Pp vs. Valencia
- Instigation or inducement, wherein the police or its agent lures the accused
into committing the offense in order to prosecute him.
- Instigation is deemed contrary to public policy and considered an absolutory
cause.
- The policeman must induce someone for the purpose of catching that him.
Applicable only to public officers and their agents
- in instigation it is necessary that the instigator is a public office or one is
performing a public function.
Entrapment v Instigation
- Entrapment is sanctioned by the law as a legitimate method of apprehending
criminals. Its purpose is to trap and capture lawbreakers in the execution of
their criminal plan. Instigation, on the other hand involves the inducement of
the would-be-accused into the commission of the offense.
Buy-bust operation
- form of entrapment
- has been accepted as valid means of arresting