Basic Principles Flashcards
BASIC PRINCIPLES
What are the 3 Characteristics of Philippine Criminal Laws?
Explain each.
GPT
Generality - Philippines Criminal Law is BINDING upon all PERSONS who Live WITHIN the Philippine Territory
3 Exceptions:
a) universally accepted principles of PIL excludes Sovereigns, Head of States, Ambassadors, Charge d Affaires
b) treaties & treaty stipulations; and
c) Laws of preferential Application
Territoriality - PCL undertakes to Punish All CRIMES COMMITTED WITHIN the Philippine territory
5 Exceptions
a) crimes committed on board a Philippine REGISTERED Vessel or Aircraft CRUISING on international waters/airspace;
b) crimes involving FORGING of coins or currency notes (or introduction thereof)
c) crimes committed By PUBLIC OFFICERS in Exercise of their FUNCTIONS
d) crimes against National Security & Laws of Nations
e) violations of certain provisions RA 11479 Anti-Terror Act of 2020
Exception to the exception: Treaties & Laws of preferential application
Prospectivity - Penal laws LOOK forward ‘; no retroactive application. Congress cannot make an act punishable which when committed are not yet so.
Exception:
a) those which establish conditions that are favorable or lenient to the accused
Exception to the exception: a) Habitual Delinquents and b) if made expressly inapplicable to existing cause of action
BASIC PRINCIPLES
Interpretation of Penal Laws - State the rule.
Doctrine of Pro Reo : When in doubt, rule for the accused.
Penal laws that are Ambiguous are to be construed Strictly against the State and Liberally in favor of the Accused.
If the law admits of 2 reasonable but contradictory constructions, that which operates in favor of the accused is to be preferred.
BASIC PRINCIPLES
What is Mistake of Fact? 3 elements
- the G mis of F
Ao would hav been L had
I is L
No N
MOF is the misapprehension of fact on the part of the accused.
Elements:
1) ACT would have been LAWFUL had the facts been as the accused believed them to be;
2) INTENTION was Lawful; and
3) mistake was WITHOUT Fault or carelessness on the part of the accused.
Mensrea/stateofmind - negates crimnl liability
Mitigating Circ - mistake of fact recognizes that individuals may act without criminal intent due to genuine misunderstandings of the facts.
It serves to ensure that individuals are not unfairly punished for actions taken in good faith, even if those actions result in criminal consequences
BASIC PRINCIPLES
Motive (Reas Y) vs Intent
Mov Pow v Purp 2use a partic
NonE v Elem
Hence M need not b pro exc
Motive is the MOVING Power which drives one to Act for a result. The reason why
Intent is the PURPOSE to use a Particular Means to Achieve a result.
Motive is NOT AN ELEMENT of a crime.
Intent is an ELEMENT of a crime, except for Culpable felonies.
Motive NEED NOT BE PROVEN by the prosecutor, except when 1) the identity of the accused is in dispute; 2) there is a need in ascertaining the truth between two antagonistic versions of the crime; OR 3) the evidence is merely circumstantial.
Intent MUST BE PROVEN by the prosecution.
BASIC PRINCIPLES
Mala in Se (iwa) vs Mala Prohibita
Rpc v Spe L
Note that there are Mala in Se crimes under special laws such as Plunder RA 7080 & there are Mala Prohibita crimes under RPC such as Technical Malversation.
iwa
intent
ircumstances MitAg
PrinAccoAcce
Xxx
Mala in Se is INHERENTLY wrong from their very Nature.
Mala prohibita is wrong MERELY because they are Prohibited by Law.
Intent Governs in Mala in Se.
Intent is NOT REQUIRED in Mala prohibita, the only question here is whether or not the law is violated.
Lack of criminal intent or Good Faith is a Defense in Mala in se.
Above are not a defense against Mala Prohibita.
Mitigating and Aggravating circumstances are considered in Mala in Se.
Above are not considered in Mala Prohibita.
Accused are convicted either as Principals, accomplices or accessories in Mala in Se.
ALL those who committed the crime are EQUALLY LIABLE in Mala Prohibita.
BASIC PRINCIPLES
Entrapment vs Instigation
Entrapment - a law enforcer uses schemes/ploy to ensure the apprehension of the criminal while in the actual commission of the crime.
Instigation - the law enforcer Develops the commission of the crime
and Suggests to the accused who Adopts the idea and Carries out the execution.
Source of criminal design;
Entrapment - from the lawbreaker
Instigation - from the mind of the law enforcer
Entrapment absolves the law Enforcer from criminal liability while
Instigation will not bar prosecution of the lawbreaker (eg. the law enforcer)
Question 1: Entrapment
A police officer poses as a buyer and approaches a known drug dealer, offering to purchase illegal drugs. The officer’s actions lead the dealer to sell drugs, which results in the dealer’s arrest. Which of the following best describes the legal implications of this scenario?
A) The dealer can claim entrapment, absolving him of liability.
B) The officer’s actions constitute instigation, making the dealer not liable.
C) The officer’s actions are considered entrapment, which absolves him of criminal liability.
D) The dealer is liable for the sale of drugs, as the criminal intent originated from the dealer.
Answer: C) The officer’s actions are considered entrapment, which absolves him of criminal liability.
Legal Reasoning: In this scenario, the police officer’s actions are classified as entrapment because he used a scheme to ensure the apprehension of the criminal (the drug dealer) while the crime was being committed. Entrapment occurs when the law enforcement officer induces a person to commit a crime they would not have otherwise committed. The officer is absolved of liability for the dealer’s actions because the criminal design originated from the dealer.
Question 2: Instigation
A police officer suggests to a group of individuals that they should rob a bank, providing them with a detailed plan and encouraging them to carry it out. The individuals eventually decide to execute the robbery based on the officer’s suggestions. What is the most accurate legal classification of the officer’s actions?
A) The officer is guilty of instigation, and the individuals are not liable for the robbery.
B) The officer’s actions are considered entrapment, and he is liable for the robbery.
C) The officer’s actions constitute instigation, but the individuals remain liable for the robbery.
D) The officer is not liable since he was acting in an undercover capacity.
Answer: C) The officer’s actions constitute instigation, but the individuals remain liable for the robbery.
Legal Reasoning: In this scenario, the officer’s actions are classified as instigation because he developed the commission of the crime (the robbery) and suggested it to the individuals, who adopted the idea and executed it. Unlike entrapment, instigation does not absolve the individuals of liability; they are still responsible for their decision to commit the robbery. The officer may also face legal consequences for encouraging the crime, but the individuals cannot use his instigation as a defense against their actions.
A foreign diplomat in the Philippines is accused of committing a crime while on official duty. Which of the following statements is true regarding the applicability of Philippine criminal law to this individual?
A) The diplomat can be prosecuted under Philippine law for any crime committed.
B) The diplomat is exempt from prosecution due to the principle of generality, as they are a sovereign representative.
C) The diplomat can only be prosecuted if the crime is against national security.
D) The diplomat is subject to Philippine law but can claim diplomatic immunity.
Answer: B) The diplomat is exempt from prosecution due to the principle of generality, as they are a sovereign representative.
Legal Reasoning: Under Philippine law, universally accepted principles of public international law (PIL) exclude sovereigns, heads of states, ambassadors, and charges d’affaires from the applicability of local criminal laws. This means that a foreign diplomat cannot be prosecuted under Philippine law for crimes committed while performing official duties, as they are protected by diplomatic immunity.
A Filipino citizen commits a crime on board a Philippine-registered vessel while it is docked in a foreign port. Which of the following statements accurately reflects the legal situation regarding the applicability of Philippine criminal law?
A) Philippine criminal law does not apply since the crime was committed outside Philippine territory.
B) Philippine criminal law applies because the crime was committed on a Philippine-registered vessel.
C) The individual can only be prosecuted under the laws of the foreign country where the vessel is docked.
D) The crime is not punishable under Philippine law unless it involves a violation of international maritime law.
Answer: B) Philippine criminal law applies because the crime was committed on a Philippine-registered vessel.
Legal Reasoning: According to the exceptions to the principle of territoriality, Philippine criminal law applies to crimes committed on board a Philippine-registered vessel or aircraft, regardless of whether it is in Philippine territory or international waters. This means that the Filipino citizen can be prosecuted under Philippine law for the crime committed on the vessel, even while it is docked in a foreign port.
