Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Crim Law > Article 11 > Flashcards

Article 11 Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
MPRE flashcards MBE flashcards Civil Procedure 1L flashcards
1
Q

Subject matter of Article 11

A

Justifying circumstances

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

those acts of a person said to be in accordance with law, such that a person is deemed not to have committed a crime and is therefore free from both criminal and civil liability.

A

Justifying circumstances

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Enumerate all six justifying circumstances

A
  1. Self-defense;
  2. Defense of relatives;
  3. Defense of stranger;
  4. Avoidance of greater evil or injury;
  5. Fulfillment of duty or exercise of right or office; and
  6. Obedience to an order of a superior.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Paragraph 1 of Article 11 of the RPC

A

Self defense.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Three requisites of self-defense.

A
  1. Unlawful aggression
  2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel or prevent it
  3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Three elements of unlawful aggression

A
  1. Physical or material attack
  2. Actual or at least imminent attack
  3. Attack must be unlawful
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

People v. Resurrecion, et al. (Effects of the invocation of self-defense)

A

The accused:
1. Admits having killed the victim and
2. The proof of establishing that the circumstances which justify the act shifts to him.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Self-defense includes five things other that defense’s one’s life:

A
  1. Defense of one’s honor
  2. Defense of one’s dwelling, granted that the said defense must be coupled with an attack upon the person defending it.
  3. Defense of rights
  4. Defense of property rights
  5. Self defense in libel
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Gotis v. People (Two characteristics of unlawful aggression)

A
  1. Unlawful aggression as condition sine qua non.
  2. Unlawful aggression as a continuing circumstance. Must have been existing at the time the defense is made
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

U.S. v. Merced (Self defense requires performance of lawful acts)

A

You may not invoke self-defense if you kill an aggressor while your are performing an unlawful and criminal act.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

People v. Dunlin (Two kinds of unlawful aggression)

A

Two kinds of unlawful aggression:
1. Actual. Material aggression which determines the intent of the aggressor to cause an injury (also in People v. Jose Laurel)
2. Imminent. Attack impending or at the point of happening. Not mere threatening attitude nor imaginary. (Also in People v. Cabungcal).

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Two kinds of peril

A
  1. Peril to one’s life
  2. Peril to one’s limb. Vital part of the body.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

T/F. A slap on the face may be considered unlawful aggression.

A

True. The face represents a person and his dignity.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

People v. Arellano (That the attack must be…)

A

The attack must be successive or at least simultaneous, without appreciable interval of time.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

People v. Calantos (What is NOT unlawful aggression)

A

The act of placing a hand in a pocket as if to draw out something is NOT unlawful aggression

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

People v. Tolentino (Wounds of the accused)

A

The nature, character, location, and extent of the wounds of the accused may belie the claim of self-defense.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

People v. Manansala (Denial to give the statements)

A

Denying to give any statement when one surrenders to a policeman is inconsistent with the plea of self-defense.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

People v. Alconga (Fleeing aggressor)

A

When the aggressor flees, unlawful aggression no longer exists.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Isidro Miranda v. People (Retaliation)

A

Retaliation is not self-defense. Retaliation implies that unlawful aggression ceased when the accused attacked him. Self-defense implies that the aggression is continuing when the injured the aggressor accused

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

People v. Boral (Toy weapon)

A

There is unlawful aggression if the aggressor used a toy weapon provided that the accused believed it was a real weapon.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

People v. Jefferson Warriner (Three elements of unlawful aggression)

A
  1. Must be physical or material attack
  2. Must be actual or at least imminent
  3. Attack must be unlawful.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

People v. de la Cruz (Rape of woman)

A

There is unlawful aggression if a person attempts to rape a woman. Defense of right to chastity.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

People v. Apolinar (Defense of property granted what?)

A

Defense of property granted it is coupled with an attack

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

T/F. Where the aggressor is disarmed but continues to grapple for possession of a bolo to kill the accused, the latter is justified in using the bolo to defend himself.

A

True.

25
Q

T/F. The person defending himself cannot be expected to think clearly and control his blow.

A

True.

26
Q

Two requirements of reasonable necessity.

A
  1. There be a reasonable necessity of the course of action taken by the person making the defense.
  2. There be reasonable necessity of the means used.
27
Q

T/F. Reasonable necessity only requires rational equivalence.

A

True.

28
Q

The test of reasonable necessity requires four things:

A
  1. Nature and quality of the weapons used
  2. Physical condition/character/size
  3. Character of the aggressor
  4. Other circumstances.
29
Q

T/F. Lack of provocation is present when no provocation at all was given by the aggressor when a person kills another running amuck.

A

True.

30
Q

T/F. Lack of provocation is present when there is provocation but it is not sufficient, e.g., verbal argument between properties

A

True.

31
Q

T/F. Even if the provocation was sufficient, it was not given by the person defending himself.

A

True.

32
Q

T/F. Even if the provocation was given by the person defending himself, it was not proximate and immediate to the act of aggression

A

True

33
Q

A woman repeatedly subjected to any forceful physical or psychological behavior by a man to coerce her to do something he wants her to do without any concerned for her rights. Must happen at least twice.

A

Battered woman

34
Q

Refers to a scientifcally defined pattern of psychological symptopms found in women living in battering relationships as a result of cumulative abuse

A

Battered woman syndrome

35
Q

T/F. Victim-survivors who are found by the courts to be suffering from battered woman syndrome do NOT incur any criminal or civil liability notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of self defense

A

True. See RA 9262

36
Q

T/F. To appreciate BWS as a defense, the courts will be assisted by expert, certified psychologists

A

True.

37
Q

Paragraph 2 of Article 11 of the RPC

A

Defense of relatives.

38
Q

Five relatives who can be defended pursuant to paragraph 2 of Article 11 of the RPC

A
  1. Spouses
  2. Ascendants
  3. Descendants
  4. Legitimate, illegitimate, adopted brothers or sisters, or relatives by affinity in the same degree, e.g., parents-in-law, sons and daughters-in-law, brothers and sisters-in-law
  5. Brothers and sisters, uncle and nieces, aunts and nephews, or 1st degree cousins.
39
Q

Basis of Article 11, par. 2

A

Defense upon impulse of blood.

40
Q

Paragraph 3 of Article 11 of the RPC

A

Defense of strangers

41
Q

T/F. Strangers are any person not included in the enumeration of relatives mentioned in paragraph 2

A

True

42
Q

Requisite to invoke defense of strangers

A

Actuated by a disinterested or generous motive. Not that of revenge, resentment or any other evil motive.

43
Q

Paragraph 4 of Article 11 of the RPC

A

Avoidance of greater evil

44
Q

Three requisites of paragraph 4

A
  1. Evil sought to be avoided actually exists
  2. The injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it
  3. There be no other practical or less harmful means of preventing
45
Q

People v. Ricohermoso (Evil must be…)

A

Evil sought to be avoided actually exists

46
Q

Roe v. Wade (Injury feared vs. injury inflicted)

A

The injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it

47
Q

Two exemptions of paragraph 4

A
  1. Greater evil should NOT be brought about by the negligence of the actor
  2. Evil brought about the greater evil must not result from a violation of law by the actor
48
Q

Effect of paragraph 4 on civil liability.

A

Civil liability shall be bone by the persons benefited by the act

49
Q

Paragraph 5 of Article 11 of the RPC

A

Fulfillment of duty or lawful exercise of right or office.

50
Q

Two requisites of paragraph 5

A
  1. Accused acted in the performance of a duty or lawful exercise of a right
  2. The injury caused be the necessary consequence of the due performance of duty
51
Q

People v. Oanis. (Injury caused as a necessary consequence of…)

A

The injury caused be the necessary consequence of the due performance of duty

52
Q

Ruling on People v. Lagata

A

Guard shot two prisoners who began to scamper saying that he did so to prevent from escaping. NOT justified.

53
Q

Two examples of lawful exercise of right

A
  1. Doctrine of self-help
  2. Rule 113, 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure
54
Q

Doctrine of self-help

A

The lawful possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any person from his enjoyment and disposal thereof. He may use force reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened physical invasion of his property

55
Q

Rule 113, 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure

A

Policemen are justified in killing an escaping felon even if there is no warrant of arrest granted that the crime was committed in the presence of the police officers.

56
Q

Two examples of lawful exercise of Office.

A
  1. The executioner of the death penalty is not liable.
  2. A doctor who amputates a person’s limb to save the person from further harm is not liable
57
Q

Paragraph 6 of Article 11 of the RPC

A

Obedience to an order lawfully issued for some lawful purpose

58
Q

Three requisites of paragraph 6

A
  1. An order was issued by a superior
  2. Such order must be for some legal purpose
  3. The means used by the subordinate to carry out said order is lawful
59
Q

Two effects of paragraph 6

A

The subordinate is not liable for carrying out an illegal order, granted:
1. If he is not aware of the illegality of the order
2. If he is not negligent

Crim Law (8 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions