Article 3 Flashcards
What are felonies?
Acts and omissions punishable by the RPC
Latin for felonies
delitos
Under Art. 3 of the RPC, when is there deceit?
When the act is performed with deliberate intent
Under Art. 3 of the RPC, when is there fault?
When the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill
Elements of felonies(3)
- That there must be an ACT or OMISSION
- That the act or omission must be PUNISHABLE by the RPC
- That the act is performed or the omission incurred by means of DOLO OR CULPA
What is an act under Art. 3 of the RPC?
Any bodily movement tending to produce some efefct in the external world, it being unnecessary that the same be actually produced, as the possiblity of its production is sufficient
Are internal acts punishable?
No. Only external acts are punishable
What do you mean by omission under Art. 3 of the RPC?
Inaction, the failure to perform duty which one is bound to do. There must be a law requiring the doing or performance of an act
Examples of felony by omission (3)
- Anyone who fails to render assistance to any person whom he finds in an uninhabited placce wounded or in danger of dying, is liable for ABANDONMENT OF PERSONS IN DANGER (Art 275, par.1)
- An officer entrusted with collection of taxes who voluntarily fails to issue a receipt as provided by law, is guilty of ILLEGAL EXACTION (Art. 213, Par. 2[b])
- Every person owing allegiance to the Philippines, without being a foreigner, and having knowledge of any conspiracy against the government, who does not disclose and make know the same to the propert authority, is liable for MISPRISION OF TREASON (Art. 116)
Is there a law that punishes a person who does not report to the authorities the commission of a crime which he witnessed? If so, what Article in the RPC?
None
English for nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege
There is no crime where there is now law punishing it
Classification of felonies according to the means by which they are committed (2)
- Intentional felonies
- Culpable felonies
Latin for deceit, but the proper translation should have been malice
Dolo
Latin for fault
Culpa
Distinguish intentional felonies from culpable felonies
- In intentional felonies, the act or omission of the offender is MALICIOUS(with malice), while in culpable felonies the act or omission of the offender is NOT MALICIOUS. Only unintentional (without malice)
Under Art. 3, culpa results from? (4)
- Imprudence
- Negligence
- Lack of foresight
- Lack of skill
Felonies committed by means of fault or culpa (3)
- Malversation through negligence (Art. 217)
- Evasion through negligence (Art. 224)
- Acts by imprudence or neglgence, which, had they been intentional, would constitute grave, less grave or light felonies (Art. 365)
Cimes which cannot be committed throuhg imprudence or negligence (4)
- Murder
- Treason
- Robbery
- Malicious mischief
What does imprudence indicate?
Deficiency of action or lack of skill
What does negligence indicate?
Deficiency of perception or lack of foresight
When is there imprudence?
When a person failts to take the necessary precaution to avoid injury to person or damage to property
When is there negligence?
When a person failts to pray proper attention and to use due diligence in foreseeing the injury or damage impending to be caused
Reason for punishing acts of negligence
A man must use common sense, and exercise due reflection in all his acts; it is his duty to be cautious, careful and prudent, if not from instinct, then through fear of incurring punishment
Presumpion on a criminal act if it be voluntary or involuntary
A criminal act is presumed to be voluntary
Three reasons why the act or omission in felonies must be voluntary
- The RPC continues to be based on the Classical Theory according to which the basis of criminal liability is HUMAN FREE WILL
- Acts or omissions punished by law are always deemed voluntary, since man is a rational being. One must prove that his case falls under Art. 12 to show that his act or omission is not voluntary
- In felonies by dolo, the act is performed with deliberate intent which must necessarily be voluntary; and in felonies by culpa, the imprudence consts in voluntarily, but without malice, doing or failing to do an act from which material injury results
Requisites of dolo or malice (3)
- He must have FREEDOM while doing an act or omitting to do an act;
- He must have INTELLIGENCE while doing the act or omitting to do the act;
- He must have INTENT while doing the act or omitting to do the act
What does intent presuppose?
The exercise of freedom and the use of intelligence
One who acts without freedom necessarily has no intent to do an injury to another. One who acts without intelligence has no such intent
How is existent of intent shown?
Through the overt acts of the person
Is criminal intent presumed from the commission of an unlawful act?
Yes
what do you mean by ignorantia facti excusat
Ignorance or mistake of fact relieves the accused from criminal liability
What is a mistake of fact?
A misapprehension of fact on the part of the person who caused injury to another. He is not, however, criminally liable, because he did not act with criminal intent
Does an honest mistake of fact destroy the presumption of criminal intent which arises upon the commission of a felonious act?
Yes
Requisites of mistake of fact as sa defense (3)
- That the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed them to be;
- That the intention of the accused in performing the act should be lawful; and
- That the mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the accused
Can lack of intent to commit a crime be inferred from the facts of the case?
Yes
Is it still a mistake of fact if the act done would have been lawful, had the facts been as the accused believed them to be?
Yes. In other worders, the act done would not constitute a felony had the facts been as the accused believed them to be
Is there still a mistake of fact if it had fault or carelessness on the part of the accused?
No. It must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the accused
Does the lack of intent to kill the deceased, because his intention was to kill another, relieve the accused from criminal responsibility?
No
In mistake of fact, is it required that the intention of the accused in performing the act be lawful?
Yes. It should be lawful
If the accused is negligent, can the accused raise mistake of fact as a defense?
No
Is criminal intent necessary in felonies committed by means of dolo?
Yes. Under the legal maxims actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea and actus me invito factus non est meus actus
English for actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea
The act itself does not make a man guilty unless his intention were so
English for actus me invito factus non est meus actus
An act done by me against my will is not my act
Distinction between general intent and specific intent
In felonies committed by dolos, third element of voluntariness is general intent; whereas, in some particular felonies, proof of PARTICULAR SPECIFIC INTENT is required (i.e., for cimes against property, there must be intent to gain)
When the accused is charged with intentional felnoy, is absence of criminal intent a defense?
Yes. All reasonable doubt to demonstrate error and not crime should be indulged in for the benefit of the accused
Requisites for felonies committed by means of fault or culpa (3)
- He must have FREEDOM while doing an act or omitting to do an act;
- He must have INTELLIGENCE while doing the act or omitting to do the act;
- He is IMPRUDENT, NEGLIGENT or LAACKS FORESIGHT or SKILL while doing the act or omitting to do the act
Is mistake in the identity of the intended victim reckless imprudence?
No. Mistake in the identity of the intended victime is not reckless imprudence
What is the third class of crimes other than intentional and culpable felonies?
Those defined and penalized by special laws which includes crimes punished by municipal or city ordinances
Is dolo required in crimes punished by special laws?
No
If the accused had no intent to perpetrate the act prohibited, can they be punished by the special law?
No
Are good faith and absence of criminal intent valid defenses in crimes punished by special laws?
No
Distinguish mala in se and mala prohibita (2)
- Mala in se are wrongful from their nature, such as theft, rape, homicide, while mala prohibita are wrong merely because prohibited by statute, such as illegal possession of firearms
- Mala in se refers generally to felonies defined and penalized by the RPC, while mala prohibita refers generally to acts made criminal by special laws
When an act is inherently immoral but punished by special laws, is it mala prohibita?
No, it’s still mala in se
Distinguish motive from intent (2)
- Motive is the moving power which impels one to action for a definite result while intent is the purpose to use a particular means to effect such result
- Motive is not an essential element of a crime and hence, need not be proved for purposes of conviction; while intent is an essential element of a crime, which needs to be proved
In what cases is motive relevant? (4)
- Identity of the accused
- Antagonistic theories
- No eyewitnesses
- Circumstancial evidence or sufficient evidence
How is motive proved?
It is established by the testimony of witnesses on the acts or statements of the accused before or immediately after the commission of the offense
Can lack of motive be an aid in showing the innocense of the accused?
Yes
