Criminal Law Notes

7/17/2019 Criminal Law Notes

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/criminal-law-notes-5691645ca8600 1/6

I. Unlawful Aggression Equivalent to assault or at least

threatened assault of an

immediate and imminent kind

An attack that has actually

broken out or materialized or at

the very least is clearly

imminent CANNOT consist in oral threats

or merely threatening stance

posture

INDISPENSABLE

The presence of unlawful

aggression is a condition sine

qua non

*Palagnas vpeople, 501 SCRA 533*People v Beltran, GR No. 16051*Cano v People, !13 SCRA "#

MUST BE ACUAL AND IMMINENT

Actual that the danger must be

present! that is! actually in e"istence

Imminent that the danger is onpoint of happening# $t is not required

that the attack already begins! for it

may be too late

*People v Ca$ung%al, 51 P&'( 03

MUST BE REAL AND NT

IMA!INAR"

*People v Arnante, 3"1 SCRA 155*People v CA

MUST BE CNTINUIN! # E$$ECT $

CESSATIN

*People v. San )uan, 36 SCRA !00*People v. Gene$lao, 361 SCRA 5+#*San%e v. People, G.R.No. 16100+,-e%e$er 6, #006

II. Reasona%le necessit&

'(AT IS REASNABLE)

There be a necessity of the

course of action taken by the

person making a defense There be a necessity of the

means used $t depends on the e"istence of

unlawful aggression and upon

the nature and e"tent of the

aggression

NTE* the reasonableness of the

necessity depends upon the

circumstances

$ACTRS IN DETERMININ!

REASNABLE MEANS +PINES,

-. %resence of imminent danger. Emergency to which the person

defending himself has been

e"posed to/. Nature and quality of the

weapon used by the accused

compared to the weapon of the

aggression0. $mpelled by the instinct of self&

preservation

1. 'ize and(or physical character

of the aggressor compared to

the accused and other

circumstances that can be

considered showing disparity

between aggressor and accused

*People v. -agani, G.R.No. 153+5, August 16, #006*People v. /$alo, 36+ SCRA !3#

RATINAL E2UI3ALENCE

The person assaulted does not

have su)cient tranquility of

mind to think and to calculate

*People v. Ra$anal, 3+ SCRA 5*People v. Palaganas, G.R.No.165!3,Septe$er 1#, #006

RETALIATIN 4 SEL$ DE$ENSE

RETALIATIN SEL$ DE$ENSEAggression that

was begun by

the in*ured party

already ceasedto e"ist when

the accused

attacked him

Aggression was

still e"isting

when the

aggressor wasin*ured or

disabled by

person making a

defenseNOT a *usti

fying

circumstance

*/.S. v. Carrero, " Pil 5!!

*Senoa v. People, !!0 SCRA 6"5



III. Lac5 of Su6cient

Pro4ocation 'u)cient provocation should

not come from the person

defending himself(accused! and

it must immediately precede

the aggression

Not gi4en cause for aggression %&4irtue of un7ust con8uct

*Riano v. People, !16 SCRA 56"

Pro4ocation %& t9e :ersonclaiming self;8efense< if an&< mustnot %e t9e :ro=imate orimme8iate cause of t9e 4ictim>saggression

*People v. Anni$ong, !03 SCRA "#

Conce:ts of :ro4ocation in t9eRPC

*People v. CA, 35# SCRA 5"

+++,attered -oman 'yndrome

'ecs# . / 01! 2A 3010 4A5A-C Act of 06678

9Evidence must be considered in the

conte"t of self&defense

SECTIN ?. Battere 2oan

Snroe as a -e4ense# 5ictim&

survivors who are found by the courts

to be su:ering from battered woman

syndrome do not incur any criminal

and civil liability notwithstanding the

absence of any of the elements for

*ustifying circumstances of self&

defense under the 2evised %enal

Code#

$n the determination of the state of

mind of the woman who was su:ering

from battered woman syndrome at the

time of the commission of the crime!

the courts shall be assisted by e"pert

psychiatrists( psychologists#

Battere8 woman woman who is

repeatedly sub*ected to any forceful or

psychological behavior by a man in

order to coerce her to do somethinghe wants her to do without concern for

her rights

C&cle of 3iolence

;# The tension&building phase

minor battering occurs

0# The acute battering incident

brutality! destructiveness and

sometime death< she has no

control

3. The tranquil! loving phase

couple e"perience profound

relief< the batterer makes up for

his mistakes

*People v. Genosa, !1" SCRA 53+

DE$ENSE $ RELATI3E

'9at ma& %e 8efen8e8) Defenseof %o8&@:erson or rig9ts*

& 'pouse& Ascendants& =escendants& >egitimate! natural or adobped

brothers and sisters or relativesby a)nity in the same degrees

& 2elative by consanguinity withinthe 7th civil degree

Relati4es %& a6nit&& ,ecause of marriage! are

parents&in&law son or daughterand brother or sister&in&law

Relati4es %& consanguinit&& Consanguinity refers to bloodrelatives# ,rothers and sistersare within the second civildegree< uncle and niece or auntand nephew are within thirdcivil degree< and ?rst cousinsare within fourth civil degree

NTE* the *usti?cation of defense of relatives is founded not only uponhumanitarian sentiment! but also the

impulse of blood which impels men torush! on occasion of great perils to therescue of those close to them

There is still legitimate defense

of relative if the relative beingdefended has givenprovocation! provided that theone defending has no part inthe provocation

Elements



*People v. ene, 3+ SCRA #"!

Unlawful Aggression +See

Art.---< RPC,

*Balunue%o v. CA, !01 SCRA +6

Reasona%le Necessit& +SeeArt.---< RPC,

Person 8efen8ing 9a8 no :art in:ro4o5ing t9e 4ictim

NTE* the fact that the relativedefended gave provocation isimmaterial! it is found not only upon ahumanitarian sentiment! but also uponthe impulse of blood which impels

man to rush! on the occasion of greatperils! to the rescue of those close tothem by ties of blood

DE$ENSE $ STRAN!ER

'9at ma& %e 8efen8e8) Defenseof %o8&@:erson or rig9ts

Stranger any person NOT included

in the enumeration of relativesmentioned above# @ence! even a close

friend is a stranger

Elements*People v. -ian, 33 SCRA 15

;# Unlawful Aggression 'eeArt#;;B;! 2%CD

0# Reasona%le Necessit& 'eeArt#;;B;! 2%CD

/. Person 8efen8ing is notin8uce8 %& resentment<re4enge or ot9er e4il moti4e

* Ca$usla v. People, G.R.No. 1#"+5,Septe$er 30, #005.

A4oi8ance of !reater E4il or In7ur&+Art. --0< RPC,

Elements *

;# Actual e"istence of the evil

sought to be avoided< not

e"pected(anticipated0# $n*ury feared be greater than

that done to avoid it#.# No other practical and lessharmful means of preventing it

NTE* it is only in this part that theperson defending himself incurs civilliability! since generally in this articlethere is no civil liability on the part ofthe accused# 'uch liability is borne bythe person bene?ted

* v. People, !3" SCRA ##0*People v. Ri%oeroso, 56 SCRA !31

$ulllment of Dut&@LawfulE=ercise of Rig9t +Art.--1< RPC,

Elements*

+amangun v# %eople! F#2#No#;73;G0!Hebruary 0! 066I+Angcaco v# %eople! .IJ 'C2A 03I

-. T9e accuse8 acte8 in t9elawful :erformance of a8ut& or in t9e lawfule=ercise of suc9 rig9t

*People v. Peralta, 350 SCRA 1"

. T9e in7ur& or oensecommitte8 %e t9e necessar&conseuence of t9e 8ue:erformance of 8ut& or t9elawful e=ercise of suc9 rig9tor o6ce

*Ba7inela v. People, !5 SCRA 331*People v. /lep, 3!0 SCRA 6

***Distinguished from Self-

Defense—dierent principles,

elements

Hul?llment of duty to prevent

the escape of a prisoner is

di:erent from self&defense!

because they are based on

di:erent principles

Cabanlig v# 'andiganbayan! 717 'C2A

.07

%e8ience to Lawful r8er of aSu:erior +Art.--?< RPC,

Elements*;# That an order has been issued

by a superior0# That such order must be for

some lawful purpose



.# That the means used bythesubordinate to carry out saidorder is lawful

*People v. Beronilla, "6 Pil 566*People v. Rogao, 106 Pil 16



E=em:ting Circumstances +Art.-<RPC,

Those grounds for e"emption

from punishment! becausethere is wanting in the agent ofthe crime any of the conditionswhich makes the act voluntary!or negligent

There is a crime but NO criminal

The burden of proof to prove

the e"istence of an e"emptingcircumstance lies with thedefense

BASIS* the e"emption frompunishment is based on the completeabsence of intelligence! freedom ofaction! or intent! or on the absence of

negligence on the part of the accused

Im%ecilit& +Art.--< RPC,

$t e"ist when a person! while of

advanced age has a mentaldevelopment comparable tothat of children between twoand I years of age

*People v. A$al, 100 SCRA 3#5*People v. 8origones, + Pil 65

Insanit&< unless t9e crime wascommitte8 8uring a luci8 inter4alArt.--< RPC

Complete deprivation of

intelligence at the time of

commission

=ementia %raeco" is covered by the

term insanity

BASIS* complete absence of

intelligence

TIME '(EN

ACCUSED

SU$$ERS

INSANIT"

E$$ECT N

CRIMINAL

LIABILIT"

At the time of thecommission of the

crime

E"empt fromliability

=uring trial %roceeding will be

suspended and

accused is

committed to a

hos

pitalAfter *udgment or

while serving

sentence

E"ecution of

*udgment is

suspended< the

accused is

committed to a

hospital# The

period of

con?nement in

the hospital is

counted for the

purpose of the

prescription of thepenalty

*People v. 9alleor, 33 SCRA 653*People v. Ro$inos, 3# SCRA +51

Minorit& Art.-< RPC

*)ose v. People, !! SCRA 116*(lave v. People, ! SCRA 3+6:

FFMo8ie8 %& RA G/00 HH'A< E.*

A:ril < JJ?

a. $ifteen +-1, &ears of age orun8erKe=em:te8 +Sec.?<:ar.-< RA G/00,#Inter4ention Program+Sec.J< RA G/00,

%. 4er fteen +-1, to eig9teen+-, &ears of ageKe=em:te8< unless wit98iscernment +Sec.?< :ar.<RA G/00,. If e=em:tKInter4ention Program+Sec.J< RA G/00,# If note=em:tKa::ro:riate

:rocee8ings un8er RA G/00

DISCERNMENT $t is the mental

capacity to understand the di:erence

between right and wrong as

determined by the childKs appearance!

attitude ! comportment and behavior

not only before and during the

commission of the o:ense but also

after and during the trial# $t ismanifested through

i# anner of committing the

crimeii# Conduct of the o:ender

c. Eig9teen +-, &ears or un8erKe=em:t from :rosecutionfor*



• 5agrancy / %rostitution

Art#060! 2%CD

• endicancy %= ;G1.D

• 'ni)ng of 2ugby %= ;1;3D

• ,ut must undergo appropriate

counseling and treatment

program

Acci8entKmeaning# rationale fore=em:tion

Acci8ent occurrence that happensoutside the sway of our will! andalthough it comes about through someact of our will! it lies beyond thebounds of humanity foreseeableconsequences

BASISL lack of negligence and intent

*oleo v. People, !3" SCRA "!

Elements

*People v. Con%ep%ion, 36 SCRA +!

-. Accuse8 is :erforming alawful act wit9 8ue care

. In7ur& is cause8 %& mereacci8ent

/. Accuse8 9a8 neit9er faultnor intent to cause in7ur&

Irresisti%le force +1,

Elements*

;# that the compulsion is by

means of physical force0# that the physical force must be

irresistible

.# that the physical force mustcome from a third person

BASIS* the e"emption is base on the

complete absence of freedom! an

element of voluntariness

NTE* before a force can be

considered to be an irresistible ne! it

must produce such an e:ect upon the

individual that! in spite of all

resistance! it reduces him to a mere

instrument and! as such! incapable of

committing a crime

passion and obfuscation

CANNOT be irresistible force

*/.S. v. Ca$alleros, ! Pil 350*People v. (oreno, 130 SCRA 311

Uncontrolla%le fear +?,Elements*

;# that the threat which causes thefear is of an evil greater than orleast equal to! that which he isrequired to commit

0# that it promises an evil of suchgravity and imminence that theordinary man would havesuccumbed

BASIS* the e"emption is base on thecomplete absence of freedom A%tus e invite 4a%tus non est

eus a%tus ; An act done byme against my will is not my act

Uncontrolla%le fear the o:enderemploys intimidation or threat incompelling another to commit a crime

* v. People, supra.*/.S. v. <7alta%ion, 3 Pil 33"*People v. Bora, "1 SCRA 3!0

Lawful or insu:era%le cause +,

Elements*;# That an act is required by law to

be done0# That a person fails to perform

such act.# That his failure to perform such

act was due to some lawful orinseparable cause

BASIS* the e"emption is base on lack

of criminal intent

*/.S. v. 9i%entillo, 1" Pil 11*People v. Banian, 63 Pil 530

Criminal Law Notes

Documents

Transcript of Criminal Law Notes