Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Criminal Law 1-AQ > Article 12 > Flashcards

Article 12 Flashcards

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

Define exempting circumstances(non-imputability)

A

Those grounds for exemption from punishment because there is wanting in the agent of the crime any of the conditions which make the act voluntary or negligent

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

Basis for exempting circumstances (3)

A

It is based on the COMPLETE ABSENCE of the following:
1. Intelligence
2. Freedom of action
3. Intent or negligence
on the part of the accused

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

Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability under Art. 12 of the RPC, as amended by R.A. 9344 (7)

A
  1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval
  2. A person 15 years of age and under
  3. A person over 15 years of age and under 18, unless he has acted with discernment
  4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by mere accident without fault or intention of causing it
  5. Any person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force
  6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury
  7. Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented by some lawful or insuperable cause
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

In exempting circumstances, is there a crime commited?

A

Yes however, no criminal liability arises

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

Who has the burden of proof for claiming an exempting circumstance?

A

Burden of proof is on the defendant to the satisfaction of the court

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

Distinguish imbecility from insanity

A

Imbecile is exempt in all cases from criminal liability, however the insane is not so exempt if it can be shown that he acted during a lucid interval. This is because during lucid interval, the insane acts with intelligence

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

Define an imbecile

A

An imbecile is one who, while advanced in age, has a mental development comparable to that of children between two and seven years of age. Under Art. 12, it is one who is deprived completely of reason or discernment and freedom of the will at the time of committing the crime

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

Requisites to constitute insanity (2)

A
  1. Complete deprivation of intelligence
  2. Total deprivation of the freedom of the will
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Is mere abnormality of mental faculties enough to constitute insanity?

A

No. Especially if the offender has not lost consciousness of his acts. At most it is a mitigating circumstance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Does the Court have power to permit the insane person to leave the asylum?

A

No. The Court must obtain the opinion of the Director of Health that he may be released without danger

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

Presumption in burden of proof to show insanity

A

Presumption is always in favor of sanity and the burden of proof of insanity is on the defense

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

How much evidence is necessary to overthrow the presumption of sanity?

A

Clear and convincing evidence will suffice

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Distinguish insanity at the time of the commission of the felony from insanity at the time of the trial

A

If insane at the time of the commission of the felony, exempted from criminal liability
If insane only at the time of the trial, still liable criminally. However, trial is suspended until mental capacity is restored

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

Up to which point is evidence of insanity acceptable?

A

The evidence of insanity must refer to the time preceding the act or up to the very moment of its execution

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

Presumption when an insane commited a felony

A

Presumed to be sane at the time of commitment of the felony

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

If the insanity is only occasional or intermittent in its nature, is it presumed to continue all throughout?

A

No. Presumption of its continuance does not arise. Where it is shown that the defendant had lucid intervals, it is presumed that the offense was committed in one of them. But a person who has been adjudged insane, or who has been committed to a hospital or to an asylum for the insane, is presumed to continue to be insane

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

Current name for dementia praecox

A

Schizophrenia

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

Define schizophrenia or dementia praecox

A

Most common form of psychosis. A chronic mental disorder characterized by inability to distinguish between fantasy and reality and often accompanied by hallucinations and delusions

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

In the case of Kleptomania, when is it considered to be under “insanity”?

A

When the accused has been deprived or has lost the power of his will and/or lost consciousness of his acts due to Kleptomania. However, if it only diminishes the exercise of his willpower, it is only a mitigating circumstance

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

Define epilepsy

A

A chronic nervous disease characterized by fits, occurring at intervals, attended by convulsive motions of the muscles and loss of consciousness.

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

Can epilepsy be covered by the term “insanity”?

A

Yes when it is shown that the accused was under the influence of an epileptic fit when he committed the offense. However, if he was in a lucid interval, then he is not exempt from criminal liability

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Is feeblemindedness an exempting circumstance?

A

No. Because the offender could distinguish right from wrong as compared to an imbecile who cannot

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

Is “crazy” synonymous with “insane”?

A

No

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

English for non compos mentis

A

of unsound mind

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Is pedophilia insanity?

A

No

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Is amnesia a defense to a criminal charge?

A

No. Failure to remember is in itself no proof of the mental condition of the accused when the crime was performed

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Is somnambulism or sleepwalking a valid defense for a criminal charge?

A

Yes. If it is clearly proven, then the accused is not liable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Is malignant malaria a valid defense for a criminal charge?

A

Yes. Because it affects the nervous system and causes among others such as acute melancholia and insanity at times

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Title of R.A. 9344

A

Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006

30
Q

Age for a child to be exempt from criminal liability

A

15 years of age and under.
A child is deemed to be 15 years of age on the day of the 15th anniversary of his/her birthdate

31
Q

Age for a minor to be exempt from criminal liability unless he/she acted with discernment

A

Above 15 but below 18

32
Q

Does the exemption from ciminal liability for a child/minor carry with it exemption from civil liability?

A

No

33
Q

Periods of criminal responsbility under RA No. 9344, which is divided into 4 periods (4)

A
  1. Absolute irresponsibility - 15 years and below (infancy)
  2. Conditional responsibility - 15 years and 1 day to 18 years
  3. Full responsibility - 18 years or over (adolescence) to 70 (maturity)
  4. Mitigated responsibility - 15 years and 1 day to under 18 years, acting in discernment; over 70 years of age
34
Q

Age in which it is considered senility

A

Over 70 years of age, considered to be second childhood. It is only a mitigated responsibility

35
Q

Define “child in conflict with the law” under A.M. No. 01-1-18-SC, Revised Rule on Children in Conflict with the Law

A

A person who at the time of the commission of the offense is below 18 years old but not less than 15 years and one day old

36
Q

Define discernment under A.M. No. 01-1-18-SC, Revised Rule on Children in Conflict with the Law

A

The capacity of the child at the time of the commission of the offense to understand the difference between right and wrong and the consequence of the wrongful act

37
Q

Distinguish discernment and intent

A

Intent refers to the desired act of the person while discernment relates to the moral significance that a person ascribes to the said act

38
Q

How is discernment shown? (2)

A
  1. Manner the crime was committed
  2. Conduct of the offender after its commission
39
Q

What is the presumption on minority?

A

The child in conflict with the law shall enjoy the presumption of minority and shall enjoy all the rights of a child in conflict with the law until proven to be 18 years old or older at the time of the commission of the offense.

In case of doubt as to the age of the child, it shall be resolved in his/her favor

40
Q

Rules in determination of age of a child (3)

A
  1. The best evidence is an original or certified true copy of the certificate of live birth
  2. In absence of which, similar authentic documents such as baptismal certificates and school records or any pertinent documents showing date of birth
  3. In absence of both, testimony of child, or member of family related to the child by affinity or consanguinity who is qualified to testify on matters respecting pedigree such as exact age or date of birth of the child or tetimonies of other persons, physical appearance of the child and other relevant evidence
41
Q

Who has the burden of proof of age

A

Any person alleging the age of the child in conflict with the law has the burden of proving the age of such child.

In all cases involving a child, the court shall make a categorical finding as to the age of the child

42
Q

Is allegation of “with intent to kill” in the information sufficient for allegations of discernment involving children in conflict with the law?

A

Yes. If the information alleges the child did the offense “with intent to kill”, then discernernment is present

43
Q

Elements of par.4 of Art.12 - Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by mere accident without fault or intention of causing it (4)

A
  1. A person is performing a lawful act
  2. With due care
  3. He causes an injury to another by mere accident
  4. Without fault or intention of causing it
44
Q

Define accident

A

Something that happens outside the sway of our will, and although it comes about through some act of our will, lies beyond the bounds of humanly foreseeable consequences

45
Q

If an accident happens while the consequences were plainly foreseeable, is it still an accident exempting from criminal liability?

A

No. It will be a case of negligence

46
Q

In an accident, what is presupposed so that it exempts from criminal liability?

A

It presupposes lack of intention to commit the wrong done

47
Q

Can accident and negligence happen at the same time or exist together?

A

No. They are intrinsically contradictory, one cannot exist with the other

48
Q

What does Par. 5 of Art. 12 of the RPC - Any persons who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force presuppose?

A

It presupposes that a person is compelled by means of force or violence to commit a crime

49
Q

Elements of par.5 of Art. 12 of the RPC - Any persons who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force (3)

A
  1. That the compulsion is by means of phyiscal force
  2. That the phyiscal force must be irresistible
  3. That the phyiscal force must come from a third person
50
Q

When can a force be considered irresistible?

A

It must produce such an effect upon the individual that, in spite of all resistance, it reduces him to a mere instrument and, as such, incapable of committing a crime

51
Q

Requisite adjectives or descriptions of an irresistible force (3)

A
  1. Present
  2. Imminent
  3. Impending
52
Q

What does Par. 6 of Art. 12 of the RPC - Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury presuppose?

A

It presupposes that a person is compelled to commit a crime by another, but the compulsion is by means of intimidation or threat, not force or violence

53
Q

Elements of par.6 of Art. 12 of the RPC - Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury (2)

A
  1. That the threat which causes the fear is of an evil greater than or at least equal to that which he is required to commit
  2. That it promises an evil of such gravity and imminence that the ordinary man would have succumbed to it
54
Q

Requisites for exempting circumstance of uncontrollable fear (3)

A
  1. Existence of an uncontrollable fear
  2. The fear must be real and imminent
  3. The fear of an injury is greater than or at least equal to that committed
55
Q

Is threat of future injury sufficient for Par. 5 (Irresistible Force) and Part. 6 (Uncontrollable Fear)?

A

No. The compulsion must be of such a character as to leave no opportunity to the accused for escape or self-defense in equal combat

56
Q

In the eyes of the law, it is the only excuse for joining an enemy (treason)

A

Fear of immediate death

57
Q

Distinction between irresistible force and uncontrollable fear

A

In irresistible force, offender uses VIOLENCE or PHYSICAL FORCE while in uncontrollable fear, the offender employs INTIMIDATION or THREAT

58
Q

English for “Actus me invito factus non est meus actus”

A

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

59
Q

Elements of par.7 of Art. 12 of the RPC - Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented by some lawful or insuperable cause (3)

A
  1. That an act is required by law to be done
  2. That a person fails to perform such act
  3. That his failure to perform such act was due to some lawful or insuperable cause
60
Q

Bases for paragraphs 1 - 7 of Art. 12 (3)

A
  1. Paragraphs 1 - 3, there is an absence of intelligence
  2. Paragraphs 5and 6, there is an absence of freedom of action
  3. Paragraps 4 and 7, it is specifically stated that they acted without intent
61
Q

Distinction between justifying and exempting circumstances (2)

A
  1. In justifying circumstances, the person did not transgress the law. No crime was committed since the act was both JUST and LAWFUL.
    No civil liability, except in par. 4 (causing damage to another in state of necessity)
  2. In exempting circumstances, there is a crime but no criminal liability. The act is not justified, but the actor is not criminally liable.
    There is civil liability, except in par. 4 and 7 (causing injury by accident, and failing to perform an act required by law when prevented by some lawful or insuperable cause) of Art. 12 of the RPC
62
Q

Define absolutory causes

A

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

63
Q

Examples of other absolutory causes in the RPC (7)

A
  1. Art. 6 - Spontaneous desistance of the person who commenced the commission of a felony before he could perform all the acts of execution
  2. Art. 20 - Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability
  3. Art. 124, last paragraph - The commission of a crime, or violent insanity or any other ailment requiring the compulsory confinement of the patient in a hospital
  4. Art. 247, pars. 1 and 2 - Death or phyiscal injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances
  5. Art. 280, par. 3 - Trespass to dwelling for purpose of preventing some serious harm
  6. Art. 332 - Persons exempt from criminal liablity
  7. Art. 344, par. 4 - In cases of seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness and rape, the marriage of the offender with the offended shall extinguish the cirminal action or remit the penalty already imposed
64
Q

Is instigation an absolutory cause?

A

Yes. It exempts the accused from criminal liability

65
Q

Is entrapment an absolutory cause?

A

No. Because the original design was formed by the offender themselves independently of the agent

66
Q

What is instigation?

A

Means by which the accused is lured into the commission of the offense charged in order to prosecute him

67
Q

What is entrapment?

A

The employment of such ways and means for the purpose of trapping or capturing a lawbreaker

68
Q

Distinguish instigation and entrapment (3)

A
  1. In instigation, officers of the law or their agents incite, induce, instigate or lure an accused into committing an offense which he or she would otherwise not commit and has no intention of committing but in entrapment, the criminal intent or design to commit the offense charged originates in the mind of the accused, and law enforcement officials merely facilitate the apprehension of the criminal
  2. In instigation, law enforcers act as co-principals, hence the accused will have to be acquitted but entrapment cannot bar prosecution or conviction
  3. Instigation is a “trap for the unwary innocent” while entrapment is a “trap for the unwary criminal”
69
Q

Can instigation be made by private individuals?

A

No. It must be made by public detectives. If not, then both he and the one induced are criminally liable. The one who instigated as principal by induction, the one instigated is principal by direct participation

70
Q

Does an assurance made by a public officer exempt a person from criminal liability?

A

No under People v. Alabas, C.A., 52 O.G. 3091

71
Q

Examples of complete defenses in criminal crimes (7)

A
  1. Any of the essential elements of the crime charged is not proved by the prosecution and the elements proved do not constitute any crime
  2. The act of the accused falls under any of the JUSTIFYING circumstances
  3. The act of the accused falls under any of the EXEMPTING circumstances
  4. The case is covered by any of the ABSOLUTORY causes
  5. Guilty of the accused not established beyond reasonable doubt
  6. Prescription of crimes
  7. Pardon by the offended party before the institution of criminal action in crime against chastity

Criminal Law 1-AQ (39 decks)

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