Criminal Law1

Front 1

Circumstances affecting Criminal Liability

Back 1

1. Justifying Circumstances (Art. 11)

2. Exempting Circumstances (Art. 12)

3. Mitigating Circumstances (Art. 13)

4. Aggravating Circumstances (Art. 14)

5. Alternative Circumstances (Art. 15)

Front 2

What is Imputability

Back 2

It is the quality by which an act may be ascribed to anperson 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.

Front 3

Imputability vs. Responsibility

Back 3

While Imputability implies that a deed may be imputed to a person, RESPONSIBILITY implies that the person must take the consequence of such a deed.

Front 4

What is Guilt?

Back 4

Is an element of responsibility for a man cannot be made to answer for the consequences of the crime unless he is guilty.

Front 5

Justifying Circumstances

Back 5

Are those where the act of a person is said to be in accordance with the law so that sucb person is deemed to not have transgressed the law and should be free from both criminal and civil liability

Front 6

Basis of justifying circumstances

Back 6

The law recognizes the non existence of a crime by expressly stating in the opening sentence of Art 11 that the person mentioned therein DO NOT INCUR ANY CRIMINAL LIABILITY.

Front 7

What is Art. 11

Back 7

Art. 11-JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES. The following do not incur any criminal liability:

1. Any person who acts in defense of his person or rights provided that the following circumstances concur:

a. Unlawful aggression

b. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it

c. Lack of sufficient revocation on the part of the person defending himself

2. Any person who acts in defense of the person or right of his spouse, descendants, ascendants or of his legal, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or his relatives by affinity within the same degree or by consanguinity within 4th civil degree provided that the 1st and 2nd requisites prescribed in the next preceding paragraph are present. And the further requisite in case the provocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making the defense had no part therein.

3. Any person who acts in defense of the person or right of a stranger provided that the 1st and 2nd requisites mentioned in the 1st circumstance are present and that the person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment or other evil.

4. Any person who in order to avoid evil or injury, does an act which causes damage to another, provided that the ff requisites are present:

a.that the evil sought to be avoided actually exists,

b.that the feared injury be greater than that done to avoid it,

c. that there be no other practical or less harmful means of preventing it

5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the exercise of his lawful office or right.

6

Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by his superior for some lawful purposes.

Front 8

Burden of proof (Art. 11)

Back 8

In matters of defense, it ia incumbent upon the accused, in order to avoid criminal liability, to prove the justifying circumstance claimed by him to the satisfaction of the court.

Front 9

Self-Defense

Back 9

The accused must prove by clear and convincing evidence that he indeed acted in self defense.

He must rely on the strength of his evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution.

Front 10

Rights included in self defense

Back 10

1. Property

2. Person

3. Rights

4. Honor

Front 11

Reason why self defense is lawful

Back 11

Because it would be impossible for the State in all cases to prevent aggression upon its citizens and even foreigners and offer protection to the person unjustly attacked.

Front 12

Requisites of self defense

Back 12

1. Unlawful aggression

2. Reasonable necessity on the means employed in order to prevent or repel it.

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

Front 13

Requisites of self defense

Back 13

1. Unlawful aggression

2. Reasonable necessity on the means employed in order to prevent or repel it.

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

Front 14

Unlawful Aggression

Back 14

Is equivalent to assault or atleast threatened assault of an immediate and imminent kind.

There is unlawful aggression when there is peril to one's life, limb or right is either actual or imminent. There must be an actual physical force or actual use of weapon.

It refers to an attack that has actually broken out or materialized or at the very least imminent, it cannit consist in oral threats or merely tgreatening posture.

Front 15

Peril to ones life

Back 15

1. Actual- that the danger must be present that is actually in existence

2. Imminent-that the danger is on the point of happening. It is notvrequired that the attack already begins, for it may be too late.

Front 16

Peril to ones limb

Back 16

May also be actual or only imminent.

Includes peril to ones safety from physical injuries.

Fist blows may imperil ones safety from physical injuries, such attack is an unlawful aggression.

Front 17

There must be an actual attack

Back 17

Insulting words addressed to the accused without physical assault could not have contituted unlaeful aggression.

A light push on the gead with the hand is not an unlawful aggression.

But a slap on the face constitues unlawful aggression because the face represents a person and his dignity.

Front 18

Retaliation vs self defense

Back 18

In RETALIATION, the aggression tgat was started by the injured party already ceased to exist when the accused attacked him.

In SELF DEFENSE, the aggressionwas still existing when the aggressor was injured or disabled by the person making a defense.

Front 19

Is retaliation a justifying circumstance?

Back 19

No it is not. It is a well-settled rule that when an unlawful aggression ceases, the defender no longer has the right to kill or even wound the former aggressor.

Front 20

How to justify homicide on the ground of self defense?

Back 20

It is essential that the killing of the deceased by the defendant be simultaneous with the attack made by the deceased or atleast both acts succeeded each other without appreciable interval of time.

Front 21

Unlawful Aggression must be committed by?

Back 21

By the person who was atta ked by the accused.

Front 22

How to belie the claim of self defense?

Back 22

1. Character of the wound

2. Location of the wound

3. Extent of the wound

4. Physical fact

5. Denial of the accused to give statement upon surrwnder to a policeman

6. Improbability od the accused (55 yaers old, sick lost a hand, impossible to continue hacking)

Front 23

What happens when the unlawful aggressor flees?

Back 23

When the unlawful aggression no longer exiata, because the aggressor runs away, the one making a defense has no more right to kill or even to wound the former aggressor.

Front 24

Retreat to make a more advantageous position

Back 24

If it is clear that the purpose of rhe aggressor in retreating is to take a more advantageous position to insure the success of the attack already begun by him, the u lawful aggression is conaidered still continuing.

Front 25

There is no unlawful aggression when?

Back 25

1. There is an agreement to fight. (concerted fight) which must be accepted.

Reason: each of the protagonists is at once assailant and assaulted and neither can invoke self defense because aggression which is an incident in the fight is bound to arise feom one or the other of the combats.

Front 26

How to determine the inlawful aggressor? In the absence of a direct evidence

Back 26

It shall be presumed that the person who was deeply offended by the insult was the one who believed he had the right to demand explanation of the perpetrator of that insult and the one who also struck the firat blow if not satisfied with the explanation.

Front 27

Unlawful aggression in defense of other rights

Back 27

1. Attempt to rape a woman- defense of right to chastity

2. Defense of property- can be invoked only when it is coupled with an attack on the person of one entrusted with said property

Art. 429 of the Cicil Code provides:

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 tgreatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his property.

3. Defense of home- a man's house is his castle. When a person is attacked in his own house, he has a right to protect it and those within it from the intrusion or attack.

Front 28

Attempt to rape a woman

Back 28

A woman imperilled may kill her offender if that is the only means left for her to protect her honor from so grave an outrage.

An attempt to rape a woman constitutes an aggression sufficient to put her in a state of legitimate defense inasmuch as a woman's honor cannot be esteemed as a right as precious if not more than her very existence.

Front 29

Defense of property

Back 29

Is not of such importance as right to life and defense of property can be invoked only as a justifying circumstance when it is couple with an attack on the person of one entrusted with said property.

Front 30

Is threat to inflict injury an unlawful aggression?

Back 30

Mere tgreatening or intimidating attitude, not pre eded by an outward and material aggression is not inlawfil aggression because it is requured that the act be offensive and positively strong, showing the wrongful intent of the aggressor to cause injury.

Front 31

Reasonable necessity of the means employed

Back 31

The means employed by the person making a defense must be rationally necessary to prevent or repel an unlawful aggression.

It does not imply material commensurability between the means of attack and defense. What the law requires is a rational equivalence.

Reasonable neceasity of means employed is to be liberally construed in favor of law-abiding citizens.

Front 32

Sufficient provocation

Back 32

It should be proportionate to the act of aggression and adequate to stir the aggressor to its commission.

Refers exclusively to the person defending himself.

Front 33

Battered Women Syndrome as a defense

Back 33

Sec 26 of RA 9262 Anti Violence Against Women and their Children took effect on March 27 2004 provides that:

Victim-survivors who are found by the courts to be suffering from battered women syndrome do not incur criminal liability notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of self defense under art 11 of RPC.

Front 34

Battered woman

Back 34

One who os repeatedly su jected to any forceful physical or psychological behavior by a man in order to coerce her to do something he wants her to do without any concern of her rights.

The couple must go throught battering cycle atleast twice to be classified as one.

Front 35

Flight, incompatible with self defense

Back 35

Flight after the commission of the crime is highly evidentiary of guilt and incompatible with self defense

Front 36

Who are relatives that can be defended?

Back 36

1. Spouse

2. Ascendants

3. Descendants

4. Legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or siaters

5. Relatives by affinity within the same degree

6. Relatives by consanguinity within 4th Civil Degree.

Front 37

Relatives by affinity

Back 37

Because of marriage, (parents in law, sister or brothers in law).

Front 38

Relatives by consanguinity

Back 38

Refers to blood relatives.

Brothers and sisters (2nd degree)

Uncle, niece, aunt, nephew (3rd degree)

1st cousins (4th degree)

Front 39

Requisites of Defense of Relatives

Back 39

1. Unlawful aggression

2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevwnt or repel it

3. In case the provocation was given by the person attacked, the one making a dwfense had no part therein.

Front 40

Gauge of reasonable necessity

Back 40

The gauge of reasonable necessity is to be found in the situation as it appears to the person repelling the aggression.

Front 41

Requisites of Defense of stranger

Back 41

1. Unlawful aggression

2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it

3. That the person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment or other evil motive.

Front 42

Who are strangers?

Back 42

Any person not included in the enumeration of relatives mentioned in par 2 of this article is considered stranger for the purpose of par 3.

Even a close friend or a distant relative is a stranger within the meaning of par. 3

Front 43

Requisites of avoidance of greater evil

Back 43

1. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists

2. That the injury frleared be greater than that done to avoid it

3. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it

Front 44

Requisites of Fulfillment of duty

Back 44

1. That the accused acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of his office or right

2. That the i jury caused or the offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance of duty or lawful exercise of right or office.

Front 45

Requisites of obedience to an order issued

Back 45

1. That an order has been issued by a superior

2. That such order must be for some lawful purpose.

3. That the means used by the subordinate to carry out said order is lawful.