Você está na página 1de 8

PRE-MID DEC.5, 2009 (Art.

1 - self-defense) 8am; rm 404 CRIMINAL LAW Defines CRIMES Treats of their NATURE Provide for PENALTIES "Indeterminate Sentence Law (SPL) Sources RPC Special laws passed by Legislator Pres. Decrees issued No common law crimes ---- NO LAW = NO CRIME Supreme court circulars cannot be applied retroactively (Art.22 RPC) State has the authority under its Police Power to define and punish crimes (Pp v. Santiago) Limits of 1987 Constitution Ex-post facto law (art.III sec22) Due process (artIII sec14[1]) Speedy disposition of cases "presumed innocent until proven guilty." Right to bail - for non-bailable cases Presumption of innocence Self-incrimination - can't be a witness against oneself Double jeopardy Limits (statutory) Presumption of innocence Informed of the nature and causes of accusations To be present and defend in person To testify in his own behalf Self-incrimination To confront/cross-examine Characteristics: 1. General - binding all persons who live or sojourn w/n its jurisdiction Citizen or foreigner Civilian or military personnel Jurisdiction -- even in times of war as long as the civil courts are still functioning Exceptions: Treaties Laws of preferential application Sovereigns, chiefs of state, ambassadors, ministers, plenipotentiary, ministers residents and charges d'affairs Consuls being commercial representatives have no immunity 2. Territorial - applicable only to acts committed w/n Phil. territory

Archipelagic doctrine Exceptions: art2 RPC Philippine ship or airship --registered Forge or counterfeit coins, currency notes, obligations or securities Introduction of those above Public officers or employees/ in the exercise of their function Crimes against national security/ law of nations 3. Prospective No law = no crime = no criminal liability Exception: When favorable to the accused (retroactive effect) N/A: Express prohibition Habitual criminal Repeal

If makes penalty lighter, new law shall apply (exc. Retroactive, favorable) If imposes heavier penalty, old law shall apply (general law, no retroactive, not favorable) If new law totally repeals the existing law, crime is obliterated. (exc. Retroactive, favorable) Construction of Penal Laws Against government in favor of the accused Spanish text is controlling All rules of stat con, these rules are applicable only when there is some AMBIGUITY in the interpretation of the criminal statute. JANUARY 1, 1932 (EFFECTIVITY OF RPC) Art. 2. RPC Foreign merchant ship An extension of the territory of the country to w/c it belongs. Shall belong to where country the ship is REGISTERED Which court has jurisdiction? RTC where it's first filed International Waters -- NOT triable in our court Territorial Waters -- TRIABLE unless affect things: (1) w/n the vessel; or refer to (2) internal management (ENGLISH RULE) French Rule - NOT triable unless affects peace and security English Rule - TRIABLE unless affect things: (1) w/n the vessel; or refer to (2) internal management

Criminal Law I (Carillo) |

Daryll 1

Ex. - possession of opium FMV is in transit - not triable Phil is destination - triable Smoking - triable Landed in the Phil. - triable Art. 3. Felonies Violation of RPC Elements: Acts or omission - any bodily movement tending to produce some effect in the external world. Punishable by RPC Dolo or culpa Acts must be OVERT (done openly, external, must have a DIRECT CONNECTION w/ the felony committed) Thoughts do not constitute a crime Omission - inaction or the failure to perform a positive duty. "mere passive presence at the scene of another's crime, mere silence and failure to give the alarm w/o evidence of conspiracy, DO NOT CONSTITUTE THE COOPERATION." ---punishable under RPC Felonies (dolo or culpa) GOOD FAITH is a good defense in RPC Mistake of Facts (requisites: US v. AhChong) Acts is lawful, had the facts been as the accused believed them to be. Intention of accused is lawful No fault or carelessness (Pp v. Oanis) no mistake of fact Mistake of fact vs. mistake of law Mistake of fact Misapprehension of facts by the person who causes injury to another. No criminal liability on the part of the actor because there is no criminal intent. Mistake of law Misinterpretation of law (diego v. castillo) Good faith is a good defense May be liable foe culpa In intentional felonies absence of intent is a defense, accused is not liable for intentional felony but may be liable for culpa Culpa

Fault; no deliberate intent but there is: imprudence and negligence Culpa punishment is lesser than dolo Crimes or offenses punished by Special laws Intent to commit crime is not required, it is sufficient if the accused had intent to perpetrate the act. It is sufficient that the prohibited act is done freely or voluntarily. Basis:

Good faith or absence of intent is NOT a valid defense in crimes punished by special laws. Mala in se Mala prohibita

Wrong from their very nature

Wrong because it is specially prohibited; had not been prohibited, then its not a crime. Motive The moving power that impels one to action for a definite result. Is NOT a requisite; NOT an essential element of a crime; not necessary for the conviction of the accused. Exc. doubt as to the identity of the accused Antagonistic versions of the killing No eyewitness & there are several suspects Evidence is circumstantial Motive alone is NOT sufficient to sustain a conviction Intent The purpose to use a particular means to effect such result. Being a state of mind is hard to prove Criminal intent is presumed from the commission of an unlawful act. Defense of intent - self-defense or accident Kinds of intent: General intent - intent as an element of dolo; presumed Specific intent - element of the crime; not presumed but must be established Ex. - intent to gain in theft & robbery Intent to kill in homicide & murder Take into consideration the weapon used and the part of the body injured Art. 4. Criminal Liability

No intent to cause injury Intended to cause injury but the result is different from that intended, he is liable for an intentional felony (Art.4)

Criminal Law I (Carillo) |

Daryll 2


Rule:

Intentional felonies (dolo) "different from what he intended." Impossible crime

A person who commits an intentional felony is responsible for all the consequences that may naturally and logical result therefrom, whether foreseen or intended or not. Committing a felony If NOT committing a felony, the article is NOT applicable Case: Bindoy - trying to retain a bolo that was taken from the owner Villanueva - snatching a bolo because of curiosity "Although the wrongful act done be different from that w/c he intended." Mistake in identity - error in personae Mistake in blow - aderratio ictus Injurious result is greater than intended - praeter intentionem Liable for all the direct, natural, and logical consequences for the felonious act, foreseen or not (Pp v. Cagoco) "DIRECT, NATURAL & LOGICAL" Ex. Refusal of/or unskilled medical treatment Proximate cause Should be no efficient intervening cause (Bataclan v. Medina) The torches is the IMMEDIATE CAUSE not the proximate cause A person is NOT liable for all the possible consequences of his act. (Pp v. Marco) "There is authority that if consequences resulted from a distinct act of fact absolutely foreign from the criminal act, the offender is not responsible for such consequence." Efficient Intervening Cause Active force that intervenes between the felony and the resulting injury Active force must be distinct act; or A fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act; The resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the victim Fault or carelessness of the victim "Malicious act or omission of the victim"

Supervening Event Amendment of information or complaint: Before arraignment- as a matter of right, formal or substantial matters. After arraignment - with leave of court, only formal matters New charge- sec.10 rule 119, original charges are dismissed and new information is filed. Accused is not discharged if there is good cause to detain him. Impossible Crimes The felony intended by the offender is not achieved due to: Inherent impossibility Employment of inadequate or ineffectual means. There is still criminal liability. (criminal propensity) Requisites of an impossible crime Persons or property Evil intent Inherently impossible/means employed is inadequate or ineffectual Should not constitute another violation of RPC Against persons or property Crimes against persons (murder, homicide, physical injuries, rape, etc.) - Crimes against property (robbery, theft, estafa, etc. ) Kidnapping/serious illegal detention is a crime against liberty Rape is now a crime against chastity Evil intent - There must be intent to injure the other Inherently impossible - Legal impossibility - trying to kill a person already dead - Physical impossibility - picking an empty pocket (Intod v. Pp) Inherent impossibility; no distinction bet factual and legal impossibility in RPC Inadequate or ineffectual means Inadequate - when poison used is too small a quantity to cause death. The quantity should not even cause any injury. Ineffectual - using sugar mistaking it for arsenic. (Pp v. Enoja) shoots a person already dead Art. 5. Duty of judge when situation not covered by law. Act is not punished by law - must render a decision according to law. Excessive penalties - must not suspend the execution of sentence. Report to the pres. through the DOJ

Criminal Law I (Carillo) |

Daryll 3

Art.6. Stages of Execution Consummated Frustrated Attempted Consummated all elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present. Frustrated Offender performs all the acts of execution that would produce the felony but does not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. Attempted Offender commences the commission of the felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts execution. Development of the crime 1st internal act - not punishable 2nd external acts: Preparatory acts - generally not punishable; Acts of execution - punishable Attempted, elements o Commences the commission of the felony directly by Overt acts

"by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance." Does not perform all acts of execution due to his own spontaneous desistance - no criminal liability. It is a reward for those "having one foot on the verge of crime, heeding the call of their conscience and return to the path of righteousness." Spontaneous desistance Absolves one from the crime intended to commit NOT from the crime actually committed before the desistance (Pp v. Lizada) Frustrated stage Offender performs all acts of execution All the acts performed would produce the felony as a consequence The felony is not produced ]by reason of causes independent Nothing is left to be done by the offender Belief of the offender is also material in determining whether all the acts of execution has been performed or not. (Pp v. Sy Pio) it is sufficient that the offender believes that he has committed all the said acts. (Pp v. Eduave) Desistance after performing all acts - not attempted anymore Distinction Frustrated there Is no intervention bet the beginning of the crime and the moment when all acts have been performed Attempted there is such intervention and the offender does not arrive at the point of performing all acts necessary which should produce the crime Subjective phase That portion begins the commission of the crime and the ;last act performed by the offender which, w/ prior act, should commit consummation. From that time forward is objective phase. (Pp v. Dagman) Nature of the injury Homicide/murder Mortal/fatal - frustrated Not mortal/fatal - attempted By reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.

External Direct connected with the crime intended to be committed Equivocal v. inequivocal Drawing a pistol or raising a bolo are equivocal acts Drawing a pistol, aiming the same at the victim, and with the intent to kill, discharge the firearm (Pp. v. Lamahang) it is necessary that their objective be known and established, or that said acts be of such nature that they themselves should obviously disclose the criminal objective necessarily intended "directly by overt acts" This element requires that the offender personally execute the commission of the crime. Inducing another to commit a crime (Pp v. Lizada) overt acts-- indicating to commit a particular crime, more than a mere planning or preparation, Does not perform all acts of execution If the offender has performed all acts of execution - consummated stage or frustrated stage. If there is still something else to be done attempted stage

Criminal Law I (Carillo) |

Daryll 4

Felony NOT produced - causes independent of the will of the perpretrator. (Dagman and Eduave cases) Consummated stage Factors: Nature of the offense Elements of constituting the felony Manner of consummating the same Nature of the offense Arson If any part of the structure is burned (consummated) If fire is started but no part is burned (frustrated) If no fire has been even started (attempted) Elements of the offense Theft - gaining possession of the item consummates the felony (Valenzuela v.Pp) there is NO FRUSTRATED THEFT Manner of committing the crime Formal crimes - slander and false testimony Mere attempt or proposal - flight to enemy's country (attempt) and corruption of minor (proposal) Material crimes - rape, homicide or murder Rape - there is NO FRUSTRATED, only attempted and consummated Art. 7. Light Felonies Punishable only when consummated Exc: crimes against persons and property. Art. 8. conspiracy and proposal Conspiracy exist when 2 or more persons agreed and decide to commit a felony. There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a felony proposes its execution to some other persons. No criminal liability Are punishable only in cases which law provides Crime v. manner of incurring liability Treason, coup d'etat, sedition is actually committed, it is NOT a crime Requisites

Direct proof not required Direct proof of conspiracy is rarely found; circumstantial evidence is often resorted to in order to prove its existence. (Pp v. Amodia) Amodia


or

Active participation Moral assistance by being present;

Exercising moral ascendency (Pp v. Muit) (Pp v. Malibiran) the act of one is the act of all; the crime of one may not be the crime of all.
Proposal Requisites

A person has decided to commit a

felony He proposes its execution to some other persons Art 115 proposal to commit treason The crime proposed must not be committed Acceptance of the proposal is not necessary - not an element of proposal Art. 9 Gravity of Frelonies Grave felonies Capital punishment (death) Penalties which in any of its period is afflictive o Afflictive (art.25) o Reclusion perpetua o RP o P/T absolute disqualification o P/T special disqualification o PM Less grave felonies Punishment w/c in their maximum is correctional Correctional penalties (art25) Light felonies AMe Fine not exceeding P200 or both Felony - Fine of P200, is a light felony *Art 26 classifies fines as a penalty. (Fine is a light penalty if it is less than P200) Art. 10 Offenses not subject to the provisions of RPC 1st clause. The RPC is not intended to supersede the SPL's 2nd clause. The RPC is supplementary to special laws, unless the special law provides otherwise. Provisions of the RPC not applicable Art. 71 of the RPC - scale of penalties.

2 or more persons Agreement concerns the commission of a felony The execution of the felony be decided upon. Indications of conspiracy (Pp v Aleta) Common design (Pp v. Lopez)

Criminal Law I (Carillo) |

Daryll 5

Special laws Punishes only consummated acts. No definition of accessories or accomplices No formula for graduation of penalties Terms, i.e, penalties are not the same Mitigating/aggravating circumstances cannot be considered, no graduation of penalties CIRCUMSTANCES THAT AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY Justifying (Art.11) Exempting (Art. 12) Mitigating (Art. 13) Aggravating (Art. 14) Alternative (art. 15) Imputability vs. Responsibility Imputability - quality by w/c an act may be ascribed to a person as the author Responsibility - obligation of suffering the consequences of crime While an act may be imputable to a person, it may not necessarily mean that he would be responsible for the same. Art. 11 Justifying Circumstances

Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; Lack of sufficient provocation

Unlawful aggression A condition sine qua non. An essential and indispensible requisite. No lawful aggression, no self defense whether complete or incomplete Must be unlawful and actual Aggression must be unlawful (Pp v. Gayrama) "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 v. Merced) "that assault was natural and lawful, for the reason that it was made by 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.." Aggression must be actual An actual assault, or Threat of an assault of an: Immediate and imminent Offensive and positively strong showing the wrongful intent to cause an injury Actual aggression (Baxinela v. Pp) "contemplates an actual, sudden and unexpected attack on the life and limb of a person, or an imminent danger thereof, and not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude. The attack must be real, or at least imminent. Mere belief by a person of an impending attack would not be sufficient." Actual or imminent Actual - assault with a cane (US v. Laurel) Imminent - rocking a boat coupled with threats of capsizing the same. (Pp v. Cabungcal) (Pp v. Macaso) "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. A mere threatening or intimidating attitude is not sufficient" (US v. Ferrer) The unlawful aggression and the defense must be simultaneous/without appreciable interval of time "if any intervened between the supposed attack of the deceased and the firing of the revolver by the defendant, the latter's actions would cease to have true character of a real defense, w/c in order to be

In accordance with the law The actor is not considered to have violated the law

Burden of proving JC The actor admits to the commission of the act but interposes a JC. He, therefore, has the burden of proving the existence of such circ Self defense Defense of relatives Defense of strangers Avoidance of a greater evil or injury Fulfillment of dutyful/lawful exercise Self-defense In defense of his person or rights Basis: State cannot protect all of its citizens all of the time. It is natural reaction to resist any invasion of a person or his rights. Defense of person or rights Person includes danger to one's life and limb Rights include right to property Requisites of self defense Unlawful aggression (indispensible);

Criminal Law I (Carillo) |

Daryll 6

legally sufficient, requires primarily and as an essential condition that the attack be immediately present." Nature, character, location and extent of wound/injuries. Wounds/injuries on the victim would usually indicate whether self-defense is credible or not Wounds/injuries on the accused are not as determinative as the injuries on the victim. (Cano v. Pp) ".the superficiality of ht e nature of ht wounds inflicted on the accused does nor, per se, negate self-defense. Indeed, to prove self-defense, the actual wounding of the person defending himself is not necessary." Age and condition of alleged aggressor Accused was 24 while victim was a sexagenarian 60 (Diaz) The victim was 55 years old, seriously injured, lost his right hand (Ardiza) Behavior immediately after the incident Failure to interpose self-defense after:c Surrendering - (manansala) Confession - (de la cruz) Physical findings Accused claims that when he stabbed the victim they were facing each other. The factual findings establish that the wounds were in the back of the victim. (Dorico) UA must exist at the time of the act constituting self-defense. "it is because this Court considered that the requisites of self-defense had ceased to exist, principal and indispensable among these being UA of the opponent." (Pp v. Alconga) (Pp v. Acosta) "granting that the victim gave the initial UA, it had certainly ceased from the moment he fell to the ground.." (Pp v. Aleta) Self-defense v. Retaliation Retaliation is not same as self-defense. In Retaliation, the aggression that was begun by the injured party already ceased when the accused attacked him, while in self-defense the aggression was still existing when the aggressor was injured by the accused. Defense of rights Home: "violent entryat nighttime"

(Pp v. Guy-sayco) "..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;" UA (Dec. SC Spain) Aiming a revolver at someone w/ the intention of shooting him. Retreating two steps and placing his hand in his pocket indicating his purpose to commit an assault w/ a weapon. Opening a knife and making a motion as if to make an attack. (Pp v. de la cruz) In order that a legitimate self-defense may be taken into account and sustained as a defense, it is necessary, above all, that the aggression be real, or at least, imminent, and not merely imaginary.

Reasonable necessity In the means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression.

Elements There must be reasonable necessity in both": Course of action taken by the person defending; Means used. Determined by: Existence of unlawful aggression; and The nature and extent of the aggression Nature and extent of aggression Striking a person on the head w/ a lead pipe causing death - mauled w/ fist blows by several men. (Ocana) Shooting a person who was playing a practical joke - place was dark and uninhabited. "lie down and give me your money or else you die". (Pp v. Lara) It should be borne in mind that in emergencies of this kind human nature does nor t act upon processes...; and when it is apparent. As is this case, that a person has reasonably acted upon this instinct, it is the duty of the courts to sanction the act and to hold the actor irresponsible in law for the consequences." (Pp v. Macasaet) Having concluded, that under all circ the accused was justifies in making use his knife to repel the unprovoked assault as best he could, it would be impossible to say that a second or third blow was unnecessary under all the circs of the case, it appearing that the accused instantly" Reasonable necessity in the means used.

Criminal Law I (Carillo) |

Daryll 7

Rational necessity to employ the means used. Perfect equality is not required. Rational equivalence is what is required.

(US v. Apego) "since there was no real need of wounding with the said weapon him who had merely caught her arm." "there was no just nor reasonable cause for striking a blow therwith in the center of the body, where the principal... (Pp v. Montalbo) "though the deceased struck him with his fists, the appellant was not justified in mortally wounding his assailant... Rational equivalence Nature and equality of the weapon used; Physical condition, character, and size; Other circs of both aggressor and person defending Place and occasion of assault. Weapons Using more dangerous weapons would not preclude reasonable necessity, if it cannot be shown that: Other available means, or If there were other means, he coolly choose the less deadly weapon to repel the assault. (Pp v. Onas) ..if the accused had only drawn in defense, that would have been enough to discourage and prevent the deceased from further continuing with this attack or sufficient to ward off the blows given by the deceased when he attacked the accused. In stabbing the deceased with his bayonet, the defendant went beyond what was necessary to defend himself against the UA made by the deceased. (US v. Mendoza) The character of this weapon is such that in our opinion the defendant could not then have reasonably believed that it was necessary to kill (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." "in the shades of night the defendant, with his adversary advancing "the reasonable and natural thing for him to do under the circ was to fire at the body of his opponent, and thus make sure of his own life."

"not every word proves fatal is sufficient to stop an enemy's 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 w/ a drawn bolo in his hand might prove to be no mean antagonist at close quarters." Physical condition, character and size of the opposing parties. (Pp v. Ignacio) When attacked by an unarmed assailant/s Private individual v. law enforcement officer Private individual - prevent or repel aggression Law enforcement officer - overcome his opponent 3. Lack of sufficient provocation Person defending must ot have by his unjust conduct provoked the aggression sought 4 situations

No provocation Provocation was not sufficient Was not given by the person defending himself Was not immediate or proximate. (Alconga) When it is proportionate to the act and adequate to steal the aggressor to its commission.

Criminal Law I (Carillo) |

Daryll 8

Você também pode gostar