Criminal Law I Reviewer

Published on January 2017 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 55 | Comments: 0 | Views: 372
of 7
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Comments

Content

Criminal Law I Art. 4. Criminal liability. — Criminal liability shall be incurred: 1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. 2. By any person performing an act, which would be an offense against persons or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or an account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.  Application of Art 4  Criminal liability incurred by any person in the case mentioned in the two paragraphs  No reference to manner criminal liability is incurred  Performing or failing to do an act, when either is punished by law, by means of deceit or fault.  One who commits an intentional felony is responsible for all the consequences, which naturally and logically result therefrom, whether foreseen or intended, or not.  When a person commits a felony with malice he intends the consequences of his felonious acts  there are cases when the consequences are not intended by him  ―wrongful act done‖ different ―from which he intended‖  CRIMINALLY LIABLE although consequence are not intended by him  Ex. death of 6-year-old girl who was to be raped but instead hit her head on the pavement, which caused her death.  Not relieved from criminal liability for the natural consequences of his act  Rationale of Rule: Doctrine of “ El que es cuasa de la causa es causa del mal causado”(he who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused)  Important words and phrases of Par 1 of Art. 4 1. Committing a felony  Criminal liability is incurred by

the person  Felony – act or omission punishable by RPC. If not is not a felony.  Offense must be ―dolo‖ or w/ malice  There is intention ―intended‖  Wrongful act results from I, N, LF, LS = Art. 365 (criminal negligence)  Act or omission should not be punishable by special laws (may not have the intent to do an injury to another)  Par. 1 not applicable in this case  Defendant – not a regular medical practitioner committed injury to another  Still liable even if there are no intention to cause evil. Accused liable for injuries thru imprudence and illegal practice of medicine.  When a person has not committed a felony, he is not criminally liable for the result, which is not intended.  Out of curiosity one snatched a bolo the offended instinctively caught the blade.  One who tries to retain the possession oh his bolo Ex. People vs Bindoy – in a tuba wine shop the accused offered the wife of Paca but refused to drink having already done so, accused threatened to injure her if she would not accept. Emigdio Omamdam – attracted by the attention Held: accused should be acquitted b/c he did not injure Omamdam deliberately, his conduct is perfectly legal. Note: On the contrary if accused has a deliberate intent to injure Pacas but instead cause the death of Omamdan then he will be committing homicide. 2. Although the wrongful act be different from that which he intended a. Error in personae – mistake in identity b. Aberattio ictus – mistake in the blow c. Praeter intentionem – injurious result is greater than that intended Ex. People vs. Mabug- at – accused and Juana Buralo were sweethearts and one day the accused invited Juana to take a 1









walk with him but the latter refused on the account of the accused having frequently visited the house of another woman. Accused shot Juana but instead shot Perfecta who did not die due to proper med attention. Held: Mabug- at is guilty of frustrated murder, qualified by treachery  People vs Tomotorgo (wife died because she was hit by a piece of wood)  People vs Monleon (maltreatment of the accused on his wife was the proximate cause of her death- son did not feed carabao so he was infuriated) Requisites of Par. 1  Intentional felony has been committed  Wrong done be the natural, direct and logical consequence That a felony has been committed  People vs Bindoy and U.S. vs Villanueva – were not held criminally liable because ―they were not committing a felony‖ when they caused an injury to another.  No felony is committed: a. Act or omission not punishable by RPC (ex. attempting to commit suicide, self- defense, policeman in duty) b. Act covered by justifying circumstances Ex. People vs Salinas – Saturnino Salinas, Crisanto Salinas, Francisco Salinas together with Tony and Omong went to Severino Aquino to get their horses w/c the latter caught for destroying his corn plants. Death of baby Jaime Tibule Held: accepted rule is that the offender is liable for his act even though he did not intend it . Any person who creates in another’s mind an immediate sense of danger, which causes the latter to do something resulting in the latter’s injuries, is liable for the resulting injuries. Wrong done must be the direct, and natural and logical consequence of felonious act.

 As a rule person is criminally responsible  In the ff cases the wrong done is considered the direct, natural and logical consequences of the felony committed although: a. Threatened or chased by a knife b. Removed drainage from the wound (peritonitis) c. Other causes cooperated as long as the wound inflicted is dangerous/ erroneous or unskillful medical or surgical treatment d. Victim was suffering from internal malady  Blow was efficient cause of death (deceased had a delicate constitution e. tb)  Blow accelerated death ( victim internal malady fist blows accelerated death)  Blow was proximate cause of death (deceased suffering from a heart disease was stabbed with a knife not penetrating the thoracic cavity but caused shock) e. The offended party refused to submit to surgical operation f. The resulting injury was aggravated by infection Ex. People vs Quianson – accused took hold of a fireband applied it to the neck of the person pestering him and victim also receives from the accused wounds on his abdomen below the navel. Victim took out the drainage w/c resulted from peritonitis and eventually caused his death. Accused claimed as a defense that if the drainage were not taken out then the victim would have not die. Held: Death was the natural consequence U.S. vs. Marasigan - the accused strucked Mendoza with a knife causing the victim to ward off the blow w/c resulted a cut in the left hand. The extensor tendon in one of his fingers was severed causing the middle finger to be useless. Held: Mendoza is not obliged to submit to surgical 2

operations to relieve the accused from the natural and ordinary results of his crime. People vs. Reloj - victim was stabbed by an ice pick although the operation was successful; 5 days later he developed Paralytic ileum and then died. Held: Immediate cause was P.I.but it was the exposure of the internal organs that lead it. Accused is responsible for the natural cause of his own acts.  The felony committed must be the proximate cause of the resulting injury  Proximate Cause – that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would have not occurred.  How to determine proximate cause  Overturned bus- four of its passengers was stuck and gasoline began to leak from the tank, spreading and permeating the body of the bus. 10 men one carrying a lighted torch approached the bus to help the 4 people and almost immediately a fierce fire started, burning the people inside  Proximate cause: Negligence on the part of the agents of the carrier. Ex. People vs, Luces – accused gave a fist blow on the stomach of Feliciana, causing her to fall unconscious but she never regained consciousness and after a few minutes died. Autopsy found that the probate cause was cardiac failure and the accused contended that the fist blow was not the PC. Held: Blow was the primary cause of death. The gravity of the crime does not depend on the more or less violent means used but on the result and consequence of the same.  The ff are not efficient intervening causes (breaks connection between defendants action and injury or loss to another): 1. The weak or diseased physical condition of the victim

2. The nervousness or temperament of the victim 3. Causes which are inherent in the victim 4. Neglect of the victim or third person 5. Erroneous or unskillful medical or surgical treatment Ex. People vs. Piamonte – One of the accused stabbed the victim with a hunting knife. The injured party was taken to the hospital and operated on and the operation did him well but he contracted mucous colitis w/c developed b/c of his weak condition. Held: Stabbing although was not the immediate cause is the proximate cause of the death of the victim and this is enough to make the accused responsible for the crime. Robbery w/ homicide because it was committed w/ malice  When death is presume to be the natural consequence of the physical injuries inflicted 1. That the victim at the time the physical injuries were inflicted was in NORMAL HEALTH. 2. That death may be EXPECTED from the physical injuries inflicted. 3. That death ENSUED w/in a REASONABLE TIME.  Not direct, natural and logical consequence of the felony committed  Distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the criminal act – consequences resulting from this does not make the offender responsible for such consequences.  A person is not liable criminally for all possible consequences w/c may immediately follow his felonious act, but only for such are proximate.  The felony committed is not the proximate cause of the resulting injury when: 1. There is an ACTIVE FORCE (distinct act or absolutely foreign) the intervened between the felony committed and the resulting injury. 2. The resulting injury is due to the INTENTIONAL ACT of the VICTIM  Fault and carelessness of the injured party must have its origin from his malicious act or omission, as when the injured 3

party had a desire to increase criminal liability of his assailant.  A supervening event may be the subject of amendment of original information or of a new charge without double jeopardy  Where the original information of the charge was for slight physical injury because at that time the fiscal believed that the injury suffered by the victim would only require 8 days of medical assistance but when the preliminary investigation commenced the justice of peace found that the wound would heal after 30 days which converts the original crime into a more serious one. This charge can still be subject to amendments w/o double jeopardy.  Impossible Crimes  Indicates criminal propensity on criminal tendency on the part of the actor.  Actor is a potential criminal  Positivist thinking: community must be protected from antisocial activities, whether actual or potential  SOCIALLY DANGEROUS PERSON – morbid type of man  Penalty for IC is in Art. 59 of this code  Requisites for impossible crime: 1. Act performed would be against person or property 2. Act done with evil intent 3. Accomplishment is INHERENTLY IMPODSSIBLE or means employed if INADEQUATE or INEFFECTUAL 4. Act performed should not constitute a violation of another provision in the RPC  Important words and phrases in Par. 2 1. Performing an act w/c would be an offense against persons or property  Offender intends to commit a felony against person or property and the act performed is against persons or property.  Should not be actually committed or else he would be liable for that felony.  Felonies against persons are: a. Parricide b. Murder c. Homicide

d. Infanticide e. Abortion f. Duel g. Physical injuries  Felonies against property are: a. Robbery b. Brigandage c. Theft d. Usurpation e. Culpable insolvency f. Swindling and other deceits g. Chattel mortgage h. Arson and other crimes involving destruction i. Malicious mischiefs  If acts performed would be an offense other than a felony against persons or against property, THERE IS NO IMPOSSIBLE CRIME  That the act done w/ evil intent – since the offender in impossible crime intend to commit an offense against persons or against property, must be shown that there is EVIL INTENT, 2. Were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means. a. Inherent impossibility of its accomplishment - by its nature one of impossible accomplishment - there must be either LEGAL or PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY 1. Would be an offense against persons 2. Would be an offense against property b. Employment of inadequate means c. Employment of ineffectual means  In impossible crimes the act performed should not constitute a violation of another provision of the Code.  Purpose of the law in punishing the impossible crime.  To suppress criminal propensity or criminal tendencies. Objectively, the offender has not committed a felony, but subjectively he is a criminal.

4

Art. 5. Duty of the court in connection with acts which should be repressed but which are not covered by the law, and in cases of excessive penalties. Whenever a court has knowledge of any act, which it may deem proper to repress, and which is not punishable by law, it shall render the proper decision, and shall report to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, the reasons, which induce the court to believe that said act should be made the subject of legislation. In the same way, the court shall submit to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, such statement as may be deemed proper, without suspending the execution of the sentence, when a strict enforcement of the provisions of this Code would result in the imposition of a clearly excessive penalty, taking into consideration the degree of malice and the injury caused by the offense.  In connection with acts which should be repressed but which are not covered by the law  1st par of this article – trial of a criminal case 1. The act committed by the accused appears not punishable by any law; 2. But the court deems it proper to repress such act; 3. In that case the court must render proper decision by dismissing the case and acquitting the accused 4. Judge must make a report to the Chief Executive, through the Minister of Justice, stating the reasons w/c induce him to believe that the said act should be made the subject of penal legislation.  Basis of Par. 1: nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege – there is no crime when there is no law that punishes the act.  In cases of excessive penalty  2nd paragraph requires: 1. the court finds the accused guilty; 2. the penalty provided by law w/c the court imposes for the crime committed appears to be clearly excessive a. the accused acted w/ lesser degree of malice, and/or

b. there is no injure or the injury cause is of lesser gravity 3. the court should not suspend the execution of the sentence 4. the judge should submit to the Chief Executive, through the Secretary of Justice, recommending executive clemency. Accused acting w/ lesser degree of malice Accused maltreated his wife in his drunken/ inebriated state because she prevented him from whipping their son and the maltreatment caused proximate death. Total absence of injury – defendant chief of police altered and falsified the municipal police blotter and book or records of arrests, return of warrant of arrests and bail bond of person charges with qualified seduction so as to show that the defendant was arrested on time.  Executive clemency recommended for the wife who killed her cruel husband  the power (usually of a president or governor) to pardon or commute the sentence of someone convicted in that jurisdiction.  Executive clemency recommended because of the severity of the penalty for rape
 Simple rape – article 335 of RPC reclusion temporal or 12 years and one day to 20 years.  It is believed that in this case after the accused have served a term of imprisonment consistent with retributive justice, executive clemency may be extended to him  The penalties are not excessive when intended to enforce a public policy 1. Rampant lawlessness against property, person and even the security of the Government (promiscuous carrying and use of powerful weapons) 2. P5,000.00 imposed for selling a can of powdered Klim Milk for P2.20 when the selling price is P1.80

 Courts have the duty to apply the penalty provided by law

5

 A trial judge expressed in his decision his view against the wisdom of death penalty and refused to impose it. Held: It is the duty of the judicial officers to respect and apply the law, regardless of their private opinions  Well- settled ruled that the courts are not concerned w/ the wisdom, efficacy or morality of laws.  Only function: interpret the laws if not in disharmony w/ the constitution, apply them.  The courts should interpret and apply the laws as they find them on the statute books.  Judge has the duty to apply the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court  Against the judge’s reasoning or his conscience, he may state his opinion on the matter but rather using his personal view he MUST first think that it is his duty to apply the law as interpreted by the Highest Court of the land  Any deviation from it would cause as sequel unnecessary inconveniences, delays and expenses to litigants.  When a strict enforcement of the provisions of this code  NO application to SPECIAL LAWS  Reason: the provisions of this code  Cannot be invoked in Mala prohibita only Mala in se.  Exception: People vs. Salazar – applied 2nd paragraph in illegal possession of firearms (special law) and Price control law. Art. 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies. — Consummated felonies as well as those which are frustrated and attempted, are punishable. A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present; and it is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony

directly or over acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than this own spontaneous desistance.  Consummated felony, defined.  A felony consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present.  Frustrated felony, defined.  it is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but w/c, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.  Attempted felony, defined.  there is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution w/c should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.  Development of a crime  Stages: 1. Internal acts – such as mere ideas of a person, are nit punishable even if, had they been carried out, they would constitute a crime. - no effect is no more a crime than a mere effect without the intention is a crime. 2. External acts – a) Preparatory acts – ordinarily they are not punishable except independent crimes - do not constitute even the 1st stage of the acts of execution of those crimes. b) Acts of execution – they are punishable under the RPC. Stage: attempted, frustrated, consummated  The offender may reach both the 1st and 2nd stage, he does not produce the felony he intends to commit but he is liable for both.  Attempted Felony  Directly by overt acts  Elements: 1. The offender commences the omission directly by overt acts 2. He does not perform all the 6











acts of execution which should produce the felony 3. The offender’s act be not stopped by his own spontaneous desistance 4. The non- performance of all acts of execution was due to cause or accident other than his spontaneous desistance. Important words and phrases in art. 6 1. Commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts  When is a felony deemed commenced directly by overt acts? 2 requisites: a) That there be external acts; b) Such external acts have direct connection with the crime intended to be committed. The external acts must be related to the overt acts of the crime the offender intended to commit.  Must be related  Not mere preparatory acts, for PA do not have direct connection with the crime w/c the offender intends to commit.  Overt acts – an overt act is some physical activity of deed, indicating the intention to commit a particular crime, more than mere planning or preparation, w/c if carried to its complete termination following its natural course, w/o being frustrated by external obstacles nor by the voluntary desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete offense. Preparatory acts and overt acts, distinguished.  Buying poison v. buying poison and putting it to another’s food. Drawing or trying to draw a pistol is not an overt act of homicide  Ex: Tabago and Chief of Police – to constitute attempted homicide the person using the firearm must fire the same, w/ intent to kill, at the offended party, w/o however infliction a mortal wound on the latter. Raising a bolo as if to strike the offended party w/ it is not an overt act of homicide.  US v. Simeon – the only crime committed is threatening another w/ a weapon









 Overt act may not be by physical activity.  By nature or manner of committing them  Thus, a proposal consisting in making an offer of money to a public officer for corruption is the overt act of the crime of corruption. The external acts must have a direct connection with the crime intended to be committed by the offender.  A = store Chinaman, attempted trespass to dwelling What is an indeterminate offense?  It is one where the purpose of the offender in performing an act is not certain. Its nature in relation to its objective is ambiguous. The intention of the accused must be viewed from the nature of the acts executed by him, and not from his admission.  Nature must be ascertained from the facts and, therefore, it is necessary that the mind be able to directly infer from them the intention of the perpetrator to cause a particular injury.  Acts susceptible of double interpretation – in favor as well as against the accused, innocent as well as punishable. CANNOT FURNISH GROUNDS by themselves for accepted crime. Directly by overt acts.  The offender commences the commission of the felony directly by overt acts.  Only offenders who personally execute the commission of a crime can be guilty of attempted felony.  Directly – offender taking direct part in the execution of the act. Ex. A induced B to Kill C but be refused – cannot be held liable for attempted homicide, only a proposal. But if B accepted and commenced the crime by shooting C but missed, they will both liable with attempted felony b/c of conspiracy. When there is conspiracy the rule is: 1. The act of one is the act of all 2. ―does not perform all the acts of execution.‖

7

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close