Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Crim Law > Article 12 > Flashcards

Article 12 Flashcards

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

Subject matter of Article 13

A

Exempting Circumstances

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

Basis of exempting circumstances

A

Complete absence of intelligence, freedom of action and intent

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

Difference between justifying and exempting circumstances

A

As to effect, EC affect the actor. Act in JC
As to existence of a crime, EC there is a crime, no criminal. JC there is no crime, no criminal
As to liability, in EC, there is no criminal or civil liability. JC, there is civil liability

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

Enumerate all seven exempting circumstancecs

A
  1. Imbecile or insane person
  2. Fifteen years of age or under
  3. Sixteen to seventeen without discernment
  4. Accident
  5. Compulsion by irresistible force
  6. Impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury
  7. Failure to perform an act required by law
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Paragraph 1, Article 13 (Imbecile)

A

An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

One who, while advanced in age, has a mental development comparable to that of children between two and seven years. There is NO lucid intervals.

A

Imbecility

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

There was complete deprivation of intelligence or that there be a total deprivation of the freedom of the will. There is lucid intervals

A

Insanity

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

T/F. When invoking insanity, the defense must prove that the accused was insane at the time of the commission of the crime (or at least, immediately prior). All other instances are immaterial

A

True.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Two tests to determine insanity

A
  1. Cognition test
  2. Volition test
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

T/F. To ascertain a person’s mental condition at the time of the act, evidence on the condition of his mind during reasonable period BEFORE and AFTER may be received.

A

True.

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

T/F. In insanity or imbecility, circumstantial is allowed.

A

Sure, but it has to be CLEAR and CONVINCING.

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

Four conditions covered under insanity?

A
  1. Dementia
  2. Epilepsy
  3. Schizophrenia
  4. Somnambulism
  5. Kleptomania
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Paragraph 2-3, Article 13 (Minority), as amended by RA 9344 and RA 10630

A
  1. A person 15 years old or below will be exempt from criminal liability
  2. A person above 15 years old but below 18 years old, without discernment, will be exempt from criminal liability
  3. A person above 15 years old but below 18 years old, with discernment, will NOT be exempt from criminal liability
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Differences between treatment of 15 years old, below 18 without discernment, and 18 below with discernment?

A
  1. Community-based intervention program
  2. Community-based intervention program, as may be determined by local social welfare and development officer
  3. Diversion program
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

The mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong including the capacity to fully appreciate the consequences of his unlawful act.

A

Discernment

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

Two ways to discern discernment

A
  1. Manner of committing the crime
  2. Conduct of the offender
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Difference between intent and discernment

A
  1. Intent is the determination to do a certain thing or purpose of mind.
  2. Discernment is the mental capacity to tell right from wrong.
18
Q

Doli incapax

A

A presumption that a child is incapable of crime under legislation or common law. They do not have a sufficient understanding between right and wrong

19
Q

Paragraph 4, Article 13 (Accident)

A

Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by mere accident without fault or intention of causing it.

20
Q

Four elements of accident

A
  1. A person performing a lawful act
  2. With due care
  3. Causes injury by mere accident
  4. Without fault or intention to cause the injury
21
Q

Presupposition of accident

A

No intention to commit the wrong done. Complete absence of negligence and intent.

22
Q

T/F. When threatening words preceded the shooting, the defense of accident can be appreciated.

A

False.

23
Q

If not all of the conditions necessary for accident is present, the act can either be considered as

A
  1. Reckless imprudence
  2. Simple imprudence
24
Q

Paragraph 5, Article 13 (Irresistible Force)

A

Any person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force

25
Q

Basis for irresistible force?

A

Complete absence of freedom/voluntariness

26
Q

The degree of force which is external or physical which reduces the person to a mere instrument, and the acts produced are done without and against his will

A

Irresistible force

27
Q

Four requisites of compulsion of irresistible force?

A
  1. Compulsion by means of PHYSICAL force
  2. Physical force must be IRRESISTIBLE
  3. Physical force must come from a THIRD PERSON
28
Q

T/F. In Irresistible force, the threat of a future injury is NOT enough.

A

True.

29
Q

T/F. The compulsion must be of such character as to leave NO OPPORTUNITY for the accused for ESCAPE, SELF-DEFENSE

A

True. See People v. Loreno.

30
Q

Article 12, paragraph 6 (Uncontrollable fear)

A

Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury

31
Q

Difference between irresistible force and uncontrollable fear

A
  1. The compulsion is by means of intimidation or threat, not by force or violence.
  2. Uncontrollable fear may be generated by a threatened act directed at a third person.
32
Q

Two requisites of uncontrollable fear

A
  1. Threat is of an evil greater than or at least equal to which he is required to commit
  2. Promises an evil of such gravity and imminence that the ordinary man would have succumbed to it
33
Q

Three elements of uncontrollable fear

A
  1. Existence of an uncontrollable fear
  2. Fear must be REAL and IMMINENT
  3. Fear of an injury is GREATER than or EQUAL to that committed.
34
Q

T/F. Duress should be based on REAL, IMMINENT or REASONABLE FEAR for one’s life or limb and NOT SPECULATIVE

A

True.

35
Q

T/F. To invoke uncontrollable fear, the accused must not have an opportunity for escape or self-defense

A

True.

36
Q

Basis of uncontrollable fear

A

An act done by me against my will is not my act

37
Q

Article 12, paragraph 7 (lawful or insuperable cause)

A

Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented by some lawful or insuperable cause

38
Q

Three elements of lawful or insuperable cause

A
  1. Act is required by law to be done
  2. Failure
  3. Failure was due to some lawful or insuperable cause
39
Q

Those where the act committed is a crime but for reasons of public policy and sentiment there is no penalty imposed

A

Absolutory causes

40
Q

Give at least three examples of absolutory causes

A
  1. Article 6. Spontaneous desistance in the attempted stage of a felony
  2. Article 20. Accessories exempt: Spouse, ascendants, descendants, bros and sis
  3. Article 124. Legal grounds for detaining a person
  4. Article 247. Exceptional circumstances e.g., paramour
  5. Article 280. Trespass to dwelling
  6. Article 332. Theft, estafa, malicious, mischief– spouses, ascendants…
  7. Article 344. In crimes of seduction, the marriage of the offender with the offended
  8. RA 9165. Voluntarily giving information regarding drug syndicates
41
Q

Instigation vs. Entrapment

A
  1. Instigation is an absolutory cause, the person would NOT have done the act were it is not for the instigation
  2. Entrapment is NOT absolutory. Trapping the lawbreaker in execution of a criminal plan originally designed.

Crim Law (8 decks)

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