Criminal law: Articles 10 Article 10: offenses not subject to the provisions of this code Offenses which are or in the future may be punishable under special laws are not subject to the provisions of this Code. This code shall be supplementary to such law, unless the latter should specially provide the contrary.
Article 10 Composed of two clauses o It is provided that offenses under special laws are not subject to the privsions of the code o The second makes the code supplementary to such laws o The first clause should be understood to mean only that the penal code is not intended to o supersede special penal laws. The latter are controlling with regard to offenses therein pecially punished. o The said class only restates the elemental rule of statutory construction that special legal o provisions prevail over general ones The second clause contains the soul of the article. o The main idea and purpose of the article is embodied in the provision that the “code shall be supplementary” to special laws, unless the latter should special provide the contrary.
Important words 1) Special laws --- Violations of the crimes listed in the Revised Penal Code are referred to as mala in se, se, which literally means, that the act is inherently evil or bad or wrongful in itself. On the other hand, violations of Special Penal Laws are generally referred to as malum prohibitum or an act that is wrong because it is prohibited. Thus, no criminal intent is needed in order to find a person liable for crimes punished under Special Penal Laws. As long as the act is committed, then it is punishable as a crime under law. a. A penal law which punishes acts not defined and penalized by th e Penal code b. Special law is a statute enacted by the legislative branch, penal in character, which is not an amendment to the RPC. c. Special laws usually follow the form of American penal law. d. The provisions of the RPC on penalties cannot be applied to offenses punishable under special laws. i. Article 6 relative to attempted and frustrated stages of execution, article 18 and 19 regarding accomplices and accessories, and article 50-57 which provide that the penalty for the principal in an attempted felony is two degrees and in a frustrated felony is one degree lower than the penalty for the consummated felony, articles 13 and 14 which provide for mitigating and aggravating circumstance, respectively and article 64 which provides for the rules for the application of penalties with three periods, cannot be applied to offenses punishable under special laws. 1. The reasons are that the special laws do not provide for a scale of penalties, as that in article 31 of the code ii. The penalty provided by the special laws does not contain three periods.
June 24, 2012 Articles 10-11 e.
Where the special law adopted penalties from the RPC, the rules of graduating penalties by degrees or determining the proper period shall be applied f. Article 6 of the RPC cannot be applied to o ffenses punished by special laws g. Offenses under special laws, not subject to the provisions of this code relating to attempted and frustrated crimes i. By virtue of the provision of the first part of this article, it was held that the attempted or frustrated stage of the execution of an offense penalized by a special law is not punishable, unless the special law provides a penalty therefor. 1. US V. Baza 2. Navarra v. people a. Where it is stated that the prohibition against the interest in municipal contracts includes all the steps taken to consummate the contract, that is, frustrated and attempted stages included. h. The special law has to fix penalties for attempted and frustrated crime i. The penalty for the consummated crime cannot be imposed when the stage of the acts of execution is either attempted or frustrated, because the penalty for the attempted or frustrated is two or one degree lower, respectively. ii. The special law does not provide for penalty one or two degrees lower than that provided for the consummated stage. iii. The special law has to fix a penalty for the attempt and a penalty for the frustration of the crime defined by it. iv. In order that the crime be punished in case its commission reached only the attempted or frustrated stage of execution. i. When a special law covers the mere attempt to commit the crime defined by it, the attempted stage is punishable by the same penalty provided by that law. j. Article 10 is not applicable to punish an accomplice under the special law k. Plea of guilty is not mitigating in illegal possession of firearms punished by special law 2) “Supplementary” a. Supplying what is lacking i. This code considered supplementary to special laws 3) Unless the latter should specially provide the contrary a. Suppletory application of the RPC i. The suppletory application of the RPC to special law, by virtue of article 10 thereof, finds relevance only when the provisions of the special law are silent on particular matter 1. Subsidiary penalty 2. Civil liability 3. Rules on service of sentence 4. Definition of principals, accomplices and accessories. 5. Principle of conspiracy b. RPC not suppletory when the penalties under the special law are different from those under the RPC i. The penalties under the special law are different from and are without reference or relation to those under the RPC, there can be no suppletory effect of the rules, for the application of penalties under the said code or by other relevant statutory provisions are based on or applicable to only to said rules for felonies under the code.
June 24, 2012 Articles 10-11 Chapter 2: Justifying circumstances which exempt from criminal liability Imputability: the quality by which an act may be ascribed to a person 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
Responsibility: is the obligation of suffering the consequence of crime
It is the obligation of taking the penal and civil consequencesof the crime
Imputability implies a deed may be imputed to a person, responsibility implies that the person must take the consequence of such deed
Guilt: an element of responsibility, for a man cannot be made to answer for the consequences for a crime unless he is guilty. Justifying circumstances 1) Those where the act of a person is said to be in accordance with the law, so that such person is deemed not have transgressed the law is free from criminal and civil liability 2) There is no civil liability except in part 4, article 11, where the civil liability is borne by the persons benefitted by the act 3) Basis a. The law recognizes the non-existence of a crime by expressly stating in the opening sentence of art 11 that the persons, therein, mentions “do not incur any criminal liability” Article 11: Justifying Circumstances The following to not incur criminal liability 1.
Anyone who acts in defense of his person or right provided that the following circumstance concur: a. Unlawful aggression b. Reasonable necessity of the mean employed to p revent or repel it c. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person def ending himself Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural, or adopted brothers or sisters, or of his relatives by affinity in the same degrees, and those consanguinity within the forth civil degree, provided that the first and second requisites prescribed in the next preceding circumstance are present, and the further requisite in the case the provocation was given by the person attacked, that the o ne making defense had no part therein. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger, provided that the first and second requisites mentioned in the first circumstance of this article are present and that the person defending by no induced by revenge, resentment or other evil motive. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury does an act which causes damage to another, provided that the following requisites are present. a. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists b. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it c. That there by no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.
June 24, 2012 Articles 10-11 5. 6.
Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose.
There is no crime committed, the act being justified
Such persons are not criminals, as there is no crime committed
Burden of proof
The circumstance mentioned in article 11 are matters of defense and it is incumbent upon the accused, in order to avoid criminal liability, to prove the justifying circumstance claimed by him to the satisfaction of the court
It incumbent upon him to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he indeed acted in defense of himself. He must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution. For, even if the prosecution evidence is weak, it could not be disbelieved after the accused himself had admitted the killing. Self-defense must be proved with certainty by sufficient, satisfactory and convincing evidence that exclude any vestige of criminal aggression on the part of the person invoking it and it cannot be justifiably entertained where it is not only uncorroborated by any separate competent evidence, in itself, is extremely doubtful. The burden of proof rests upon the accused. His duty is to establish self-defense by clear and convincing evidence, otherwise, conviction o would follow from his admission that he killed the victim. He must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of that for the o prosecution. The plea of self-defense cannot be justifiably entertained where it is not only uncorroborated by any separate competent evidence by in itself extremely doubtful Par.1 Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the follow circumstance o concur: Unlawful aggression Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prev ent or repel it Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person d efending himself Right included in self-defense Includes not only the defense of the person or body of the one assaulted but also that of o rights, that is, those rights the enjoyment of which is protected by law Aside from the right to life on which rests the legitimate defense of our person, we have the o right to property acquired by us, and the right to honor which is not the least prized of man’s patrimony Reasons why penal law makes self-defense lawful It would be quite impossible for the state in all cases to prevent aggression upon its citizens o (and even foreigners, of course) and offer protection to the person unjustly attacked. It cannot be conceived that a person should succumb to an unlawful aggression without offering any resistance.
June 24, 2012 Articles 10-11 o
Finds justification in man’s natural instinct to protect, repels, and save his person or rights from impending danger or peril Based on that impulse of self-preservation born to man and part of his nature as a human being Classicists in penal law Lawful defense is grounded on the impossibility on the part of the state to avoid a present unjust aggression and protect a person unlawfully attacked, therefore, it is in conceivable for the state to require that the innocent succumb to an unlawful aggression without resistance Positivists Lawful defense is an exercise of a right, an act of social justice done to repel the attack of an aggression
Requisites of self-defense 1) Unlawful aggression 2) Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it 3) Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. 4)