criminal law art. 11-20

7/26/2019 Criminal Law Art. 11-20

1/39

Art. 11: Justifying Circumstances those wherein the acts of the actorare in accordance with law, hence, he is justied. There is no criminal andcivil liaility ecause there is no crime.

Self-defense

1. Reason for lawfulness of self-defense: because it would be impossible for the

State to protect all its citizens. Also a person cannot just give up his rightswithout any resistance being oered.

!. Rights included in self-defense:

1. "efense of person

!. "efense of rights protected by law

1. !efense of "ro"erty:

a. #he owner or lawful possessor of a thing has a right to e$clude any person fromthe enjoyment or disposal thereof. %or this purpose& he may use such force as maybe reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawfulphysical invasion or usurpation of his property. 'Art. 429, New Civil Code(

b. defense of chastity

). *lements:

1. 1. #nlawful Aggression+ is a physical act manifesting danger to life orlimb, it is either actual or imminent.

1. Actualreal aggression + Real aggression presupposes an act positivelystrong& showing the wrongful intent of the aggressor& which is notmerely threatening or intimidating attitude& but a material attac.

#here must be real danger to life a personal safety.

!. /mminent unlawful aggression + it is an attac that is impending or onthe point of happening. /t must not consist in a mere threateningattitude& nor must it be merely imaginary. #he intimidating attitudemust be oensive and positively strong.

). 0here there is an agreement to ght& there is no unlawful aggression.*ach of the protagonists is at once assailant and assaulted& and neithercan invoe the right of self-defense& because aggression which is anincident in the ght is bound to arise from one or the other of thecombatants. *$ception: 0here the attac is made in violation of theconditions agreed upon& there may be unlawful aggression.

2. 3nlawful aggression in self-defense& to be justifying& must e$ist at thetime the defense is made. /t may no longer e$ist if the aggressor runsaway after the attac or he has manifested a refusal to continueghting. /f the person attaced allowed some time to elapse after hesuered the injury before hitting bac& his act of hitting bac would not

constitute self-defense& but revenge. A light push on the head with the hand is not unlawful aggression& but a slap

on the face is& because his dignity is in danger.

A police o4cer e$ceeding his authority may become an unlawful aggressor.

#he nature& character& location& and e$tent of the wound may belie claim ofself-defense.

$. %easonale necessity of the means em"loyed to "revent orre"el it&


2/39

a. %e'uisites:

5eans were used to prevent or repel

5eans must be necessary and there is no other way to prevent or repel it

5eans must be reasonable + depending on the circumstances& but generallyproportionate to the force of the aggressor.

1. #he rule here is to stand your ground when in the right which may invoedwhen the defender is unlawfully assaulted and the aggressor is armed with aweapon.

!. #he rule is more liberal when the accused is a peace o4cer who& unlie aprivate person& cannot run away.

). #he reasonable necessity of the means employed to put up the defense.

#he gauge of reasonable necessity is the instinct of self-preservation& i.e. aperson did not use his rational mind to pic a means of defense but acted outof self-preservation& using the nearest or only means available to defendhimself& even if such means be disproportionately advantageous as comparedwith the means of violence employed by the aggressor.

Reasonableness of the means depends on the nature and the 6uality of theweapon used& physical condition& character& size and other circumstances.

(. )ac* of su+cient "rovocation on the "art of the "erson defendinghimself.

1. 0hen no provocation at all was given to the aggressor by the persondefending himself.

!. 0hen even if provocation was given by the person defending himself& suchwas not su4cient to cause violent aggression on the part of the attacer& i.e.the amount of provocation was not su4cient to stir the aggressor into theacts which led the accused to defend himself.

). 0hen even if the provocation were su4cient& it was not given by the person

defending himself.

2. 0hen even if provocation was given by the person defending himself& theattac was not pro$imate or immediate to the act of provocation.

7. Su4cient means proportionate to the damage caused by the act& andade6uate to stir one to its commission.

1. inds of -elf!efense

1. -elfdefense of chastity+ to be entitled to complete self-defense ofchastity& there must be an attempt to rape& mere imminence thereofwill su4ce.

!. !efense of "ro"erty+ an attac on the property must be coupledwith an attac on the person of the owner& or of one entrusted with thecare of such property.

). -elfdefense in liel+ physical assault may be justied when thelibel is aimed at a person8s good name& and while the libel is inprogress& one libel deserves another.

9urden of proof + on the accused 'su4cient& clear and convincing evidence, mustrely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weaness of theprosecution(.


3/39

!efense of %elative

A. /lements:

1. unlawful aggression

!. reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the attac,

). in case provocation was given by the person attaced& that the person

maing the defense had no part in such provocation.0. %elatives entitled to the defense:

1. spouse

!. ascendants

). descendants

2. legitimate& natural or adopted brothers or sisters

7. relatives by a4nity in the same degree

;. relatives by consanguinity within the 2th civil degree.

#he third element need not tae place. #he relative defended may even bethe original aggressor. All that is re6uired to justify the act of the relative

defending is that he taes no part in such provocation.


4/39

1. A state of necessity e$ists when there is a clash between une6ual rights& thelesser right giving way to the greater right. Aside from the ) re6uisites statedin the law& it should also be added that the necessity must not be due to thenegligence or violation of any law by the actor.

!. #he person for whose benet the harm has been prevented shall be civillyliable in proportion to the benet which may have been received. #his is theonly justifying circumstance which provides for the payment of civilindemnity. 3nder the other justifying circumstances& no civil liabilityattaches. #he courts shall determine& in their sound discretion& theproportionate amount for which law one is liable

2ulllment of !uty or )awful /3ercise of a %ight or 4+ce

1. /lements:

1. that the accused acted in the performance of a duty& or in the lawful e$erciseof a right or o4ce,

!. that the injury caused or oense committed be the necessary conse6uence ofthe due performance of the duty& or the lawful e$ercise of such right or o4ce.

!. A police o4cer is justied in shooting and illing a criminal who refuses tostop when ordered to do so& and after such o4cer red warning shots in theair.

shooting an oender who refused to surrender is justied& but not a thief whorefused to be arrested.

). #he accused must prove that he was duly appointed to the position heclaimed he was discharging at the time of the commission of the oense. /tmust be made to appear not only that the injury caused or the oensecommitted was done in the fulllment of a duty& or in the lawful e$ercise of aright or o4ce& but that the oense committed was a necessary conse6uenceof such fulllment of duty& or lawful e$ercise of a right or o4ce.

2. A mere security guard has no authority or duty to re at a thief& resulting inthe latter8s death.

4edience to a -u"erior 4rder

1. /lements:

1. there is an order,

!. the order is for a legal purpose,

). the means used to carry out said order is lawful.

!. #he subordinate who is made to comply with the order is the party which mayavail of this circumstance. #he o4cer giving the order may not invoe this.

). #he subordinate8s good faith is material here. /f he obeyed an order in goodfaith& not being aware of its illegality& he is not liable. =owever& the order

must not be patently illegal. /f the order is patently illegal this circumstancecannot be validly invoed.

2. #he reason for this justifying circumstance is the subordinate8s mistae offact in good faith.

7. *ven if the order be patently illegal& the subordinate may yet be able toinvoe the e$empting circumstances of having acted under the compulsion ofan irresistible force& or under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear.

*>*5?#/@< /R35S#A@*S


5/39

*$empting circumstances 'non-imputability( are those ground for e$emptionfrom punishment because there is wanting in the agent of the crime of any ofthe conditions which mae the act voluntary& or negligent.

asis: #he e$emption from punishment is based on the complete absence ofintelligence& freedom of action& or intent& or on the absence of negligence onthe part of the accused.

A person who acts 0/#=B3# 5AC/* 'without intelligence& freedom of actionor intent( or 0/#=B3# @*


6/39

time of the trial& there will be a suspension of the trial until the mentalcapacity of the accused is restored to aord him a fair trial.

*vidence of insanity must refer to the time preceding the act underprosecution or to the very moment of its e$ecution. 0ithout such evidence&the accused is presumed to be sane when he committed the crime.ontinuance of insanity which is occasional or intermittent in nature will notbe presumed. /nsanity at another time must be proved to e$ist at the time ofthe commission of the crime. A person is also presumed to have committed acrime in one of the lucid intervals. ontinuance of insanity will only bepresumed in cases wherein the accused has been adjudged insane or hasbeen committed to a hospital or an asylum for the insane.

/nstances of /nsanity:

Reyes: %eeblemindedness is not imbecility because the oender candistinguish right from wrong. An imbecile and an insane to be e$emptedmust not be able to distinguish right from wrong.

Relova: %eeblemindedness is imbecility.

rimes committed while in a dream& by a somnambulist are embraced in theplea of insanity. =ypnotism& however& is a debatable issue.

rime committed while suering from malignant malaria is characterized byinsanity at times thus such person is not criminally liable.

1. asis: complete absence of intelligence& and element of voluntariness.

!. "enition : An imbecile is one who while advanced in age has a mentaldevelopment comparable to that of children between ! and F years of age.An insane is one who acts with complete deprivation of intelligencereason orwithout the least discernment or with total deprivation of freedom of the will.

1. "ementia praeco$ is covered by the term insanity because homicidal attacis common in such form of psychosis. /t is characterized by delusions that he

is being interfered with se$ually& or that his property is being taen& thus theperson has no control over his acts.

!. Gleptomania or presence of abnormal& persistent impulse or tendency tosteal& to be considered e$empting& will still have to be investigated bycompetent psychiatrist to determine if the unlawful act is due to theirresistible impulse produced by his mental defect& thus loss of will-power. /fsuch mental defect only diminishes the e$ercise of his willpower and did notdeprive him of the consciousness of his acts& it is only mitigating.

). *pilepsy which is a chronic nervous disease characterized by convulsivemotions of the muscles and loss of consciousness may be covered by theterm insanity. =owever& it must be shown that commission of the oense isduring one of those epileptic attacs.

!. A person under nine years of age.

5/@BR/#D

3nder nine years to be construed nine years or less. Such was inferred fromthe ne$t subse6uent paragraph which does not totally e$empt those overnine years of age if he acted with discernment.

?resumptions of incapability of committing a crime is absolute.


7/39

Age is computed up to the time of the commission of the crime. Age can beestablished by the testimonies of families and relatives.

Senility or second childhood is only mitigating.

2 periods of the life of a human being:

1. Re6uisite: Bender is under H years of age at the time of the commission of

the crime. #here is absolute criminal irresponsibility in the case of a minorunder H-years of age.

!. asis: complete absence of intelligence.

Age Criminal %es"onsiility

H years andbelow Absolute irresponsibility

etween H and17 years old

onditional responsibility

0ithout discernment + no liability 0ith "iscernment +mitigated liability

etween 17and 1I yearsold 5itigated responsibility

etween 1Iand FJ yearsold %ull responsibility

Bver FJ yearsold 5itigated responsibilit

(. A "erson over nine years of age and under fteen, unless he hasacted with discernment, in which case, such minor shall e "roceededagainst in accordance with the "rovisions of article


8/39

shown by: '1( manner the crime was committed 'i.e. commission of the crimeduring nighttime to avoid detection, taing the loot to another town to avoiddiscovery(& or '!( the conduct of the oender after its commission 'i.e. elationof satisfaction upon the commission of his criminal act as shown by theaccused cursing at the victim(.

%acts or particular facts concerning personal appearance which lead o4cersor the court to believe that his age was as stated by said o4cer or courtshould be stated in the record.

/f such minor is adjudged to be criminally liable& he is charged to the custodyof his family& otherwise& to the care of some institution or person mentionedin article IJ. #his is because of the court8s presupposition that the minorcommitted the crime without discernment.

Allegation of Lwith intent to illM in the information is su4cient allegation ofdiscernment as such conveys the idea that he new what would be theconse6uences of his unlawful act. #hus is the case wherein the informationalleges that the accused& with intent to ill& willfully& criminally and feloniouslypushed a child of I 1! years of age into a deep place. /t was held that the

re6uirement that there should be an allegation that she acted withdiscernment should be deemed amply met.

2. Any person who& while performing a lawful act with due care& causes aninjury by mere accident without fault or intention of causing it.

A/"*@#: asis: lac of negligence and intent.

*lements:

"ischarge of a rearm in a thicly populated place in the ity of 5anila beingprohibited by Art. 177 of the R? is not a performance of a lawful act whensuch led to the accidental hitting and wounding of ! persons.

"rawing a weapongun in the course of self-defense even if such red andseriously injured the assailant is a lawful act and can be considered as donewith due care since it could not have been done in any other manner.

0ith the fact duly established by the prosecution that the appellant wasguilty of negligence& this e$empting circumstance cannot be applied becauseapplication presupposes that there is no fault or negligence on the part of theperson performing the lawful act.

Accident happens outside the sway of our will& and although it comes aboutsome act of our will& lies beyond the bounds of humanly foreseeableconse6uences.

#he accused& who& while hunting saw wild chicens and red a shot can beconsidered to be in the performance of a lawful act e$ecuted with due careand without intention of doing harm when such short recoiled and

accidentally wounded another. Such was established because the deceasedwas not in the direction at which the accused red his gun.

#he chaueur& who while driving on the proper side of the road at a moderatespeed and with due diligence& suddenly and une$pectedly saw a man in frontof his vehicle coming from the sidewal and crossing the street without anywarning that he would do so& in eect being run over by the said chaueur&was held not criminally liable& it being by mere accident.

1. A person is performing a lawful act


9/39

!. *$ercise of due dare

). =e causes injury to another by mere accident

2. 0ithout fault or intention of causing it.

7. Any person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force.

/RR*S/S#/C* %BR*: asis: complete absence of freedom& an element of

voluntariness *lements:

%orce& to be irresistible& must produce such an eect on an individual thatdespite of his resistance& it reduces him to a mere instrument and& as such&incapable of committing a crime. /t compels his member to act and his mindto obey. /t must act upon him from the outside and by a third person.

aculi& who was accused but not a member of a band which murdered someAmerican school teachers and was seen and compelled by the leaders of theband to bury the bodies& was not criminally liable as accessory for concealingthe body of the crime. aculi acted under the compulsion of an irresistibleforce.

/rresistible force can never consist in an impulse or passion& or obfuscation. /tmust consist of an e$traneous force coming from a third person.

1. #hat the compulsion is by means of physical force

!. #hat the physical force must be irresistible.

). #hat the physical force must come from a third person

;. Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an e6ualor greater injury.

3@B@#RBCCAC* %*AR: asis: complete absence of freedom

*lements

1. that the threat which causes the fear is of an evil greater than& or at least

e6ual to that wc he is re6uired to commit!. that it promises an evil of such gravity and imminence that the ordinary man

would have succumbed to it.

"uress& to be a valid defense& should be based on real& imminent orreasonable fear for one8s life or limb. /t should not be inspired by speculative&fanciful or remote fear.

#hreat of future injury is not enough. #he compulsion must leave noopportunity to the accused for escape or self-defense in e6ual combat.

"uress is the use of violence or physical force.

#here is uncontrollable fear is when the oender employs intimidation orthreat in compelling another to commit a crime& while irresistible force iswhen the oender uses violence or physical force to compel another personto commit a crime.

Lan act done by me against my will is not my actM

>. Any "erson who fails to "erform an act re'uired y law, when"revented y some lawful or insu"erale cause.

CA0%3C BR /@S3?*RAC* A3S*: asis: acts without intent& the thirdcondition of voluntariness in intentional felony


10/39

*lements:

1. #hat an act is re6uired by law to be done

!. #hat a person fails to perform such act

). #hat his failure to perform such act was due to some lawful or insuperablecause

*$amples of lawful cause: #o be an *>*5?#/@< circumstance + /@#*@# /S 0A@#/@

criminal law art. 11-20

Documents