Doctrines in Crim Law

Question 1

Doctrine of Pro Reo

D in i of PL, Resolve D in F of Acc

Answer 1

The Doctrine of Pro Reo dictates that in case of DOUBT in the INTERPRETATION of penal laws, courts should RESOLVE the doubt in FAVOR of the accused.

Example:
In a criminal trial where the law is ambiguous regarding the definition of “possession” of illegal drugs, the court should interpret it in a way that favors the accused, ensuring they are not unjustly convicted. This doctrine underscores the principle that any uncertainty or ambiguity in the law should be resolved in favor of protecting the rights and liberties of the accused.

Question 2

Doctrine of Indeterminate sentence

In imp of Sen, it allows for min max

Answer 2

The Doctrine of Indeterminate Sentence allows for the imposition of a Sentence with a MINIMUM and MAXIMUM period, providing the opportunity for offenders to be rehabilitated and RELEASED on PAROLE once they have served the Minimum Term.

Example:
In a case where a person is convicted of theft, the court may impose an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment ranging from 6 months (minimum) to 2 years (maximum). After serving the minimum term of 6 months, the offender may be eligible for parole based on good behavior and rehabilitation efforts. This doctrine aims to balance punishment with rehabilitation, giving offenders a chance to reintegrate into society while ensuring public safety.

Question 3

Doctrine of Absorption

If a crime is an E of another C, the Acc is punishable by the greater P between the 2 crimes at Max per

Answer 3

The Doctrine of Absorption states that if a specific CRIME is absorbed or INCLUDED in ANOTHER Offense, only the main or principal offense is punishable, and the absorbed crime is not separately penalized.

Example:
In Philippine law, theft is absorbed by the crime of robbery. If a person commits robbery (the main offense) by using force or intimidation to take someone’s wallet, the act of taking the wallet constitutes theft. Under the Doctrine of Absorption, the person would only be charged with robbery, and the theft component would not be separately penalized. This doctrine ensures that an offender is not punished twice for the same act, preventing double jeopardy and promoting efficiency in criminal prosecution.

Question 4

Doctrine of Indivisibility

Answer 4

Treats the phases in the commission of the felonious act as an INDIVISIBLE WHOLE.

Effect: Actor is criminally liable from ALL the ACTS

Question 5

Doctrine of Irresistible Force

States that an A done in compulsion of an IrrFo is NOT PUN bec the per acted without V

Answer 5

The Doctrine of Irresistible Force states that an act done under compulsion of an irresistible force is not punishable because the person involved lacks freedom to act voluntarily.

Example:
During a bank robbery, a robber threatens a bank teller with a loaded gun, forcing the teller to hand over money from the cash register. In this scenario, if the teller complies under the threat of immediate harm (irresistible force), the teller’s actions may be excused from criminal liability because they were compelled to act involuntarily due to the force exerted by the robber. Thus, the Doctrine of Irresistible Force may apply to mitigate or excuse the teller’s criminal responsibility in such a situation.

Question 6

Doctrine of Implied Conspiracy

When the Axta if 2 or m persons MANIFEST a com int or Purpose, cons is INFERRED even w/o proof of dir agr

Answer 6

The Doctrine of Implied Conspiracy states that when 2 or more Persons commit a crime and THEIR ACTS manifest a COMMON INTENT or purpose, conspiracy can be inferred even without direct proof of an agreement to commit the crime.

Example:
In a robbery case, if several individuals enter a bank armed with weapons, and while inside, they coordinate their actions to control bank employees and customers while taking money from the vault, the court may infer conspiracy even if there is no explicit agreement shown among them beforehand.
The common intent to commit robbery can be deduced from their coordinated actions and presence at the scene. Thus, all participants can be held liable for conspiracy to commit robbery under Philippine law.

Question 7

Doctrine of Piercing Veil of corporate Fiction

Holds bod or off PERSONLY LIABLE for corprate acts

Answer 7

The Doctrine of Piercing the Veil of Corporate Fiction allows Courts to DISREGARD the separate legal personality of a corporation and HOLD its officers or shareholders personally LIABLE for corporate acts, especially when the corporate entity is used to evade a legal obligation or perpetrate fraud.

Example:
Suppose a corporation is established to engage in legitimate business activities but is used by its officers to defraud creditors by transferring assets to related companies to avoid paying debts.

In such cases, if the court finds that the corporation is merely an alter ego or sham used to perpetrate fraud or evade liabilities, it may pierce the corporate veil. This action would allow the creditors to hold the officers personally liable for the debts of the corporation, disregarding the corporate entity’s separate legal personality.

Question 8

Doctrine of Supervening event

Allows for charges to be dismissed

Answer 8

The doctrine of supervening event in Philippine criminal law allows CHARGES to be Dismissed or PENALATIES Modified if a NUE new, unforeseen event significantly ALTERS the legal situation (e.g., the law the act violated gets repealed after the crime was committed).

Example:
Someone is charged with vagrancy under a law that criminalizes begging. However, before the trial, a new law is passed that decriminalizes begging and provides social services for those experiencing homelessness. In this case, the vagrancy charge based on begging could be dismissed due to the repeal of the law criminalizing it.

Question 9

Doctrine of Last clear chance

Holds the D who had the LAST OPP to Av acc but FAILED despite the N of other Party

Answer 9

The Doctrine of Last Clear Chance HOLDS that liability may be IMPOSED on a Defendant who had the Last Opportunity to avoid an accident or injury but FAILED to do so, despite the plaintiff’s earlier negligence.

Example:
In a traffic accident case, Driver A negligently crosses an intersection against a red light. Driver B, who has the right of way, fails to avoid the collision despite seeing Driver A approaching. According to the Doctrine of Last Clear Chance, even though Driver A was initially negligent by violating traffic laws, Driver B had the last clear chance to prevent the accident by taking evasive action. As a result, Driver B may be held liable for the accident due to failing to exercise caution during the last clear chance to avoid the collision, despite Driver A’s initial negligence.

Question 10

Doctrine of Operation of Law

Answer 10

Acts done in violation of a Special law but NOT PUNISHABLE thereunder will be punished Under RPC.

Question 11

Doctrine of Probable Cause

Before the 2, iss of sw, wa, the J

Answer 11

Explanation: This doctrine requires that before
(1) a person can be arrested or
(2) a search warrant issued against them,
there must be sufficient evidence to lead a reasonable person to believe that
A) a crime has been committed and
B) that the person to be arrested or the place to be searched is involved in the crime.

Example: Police officers cannot arrest someone based on a mere suspicion; they must have credible information or evidence linking the person to a crime. For instance, if the police receive a tip that a person is selling illegal drugs from their home, they must gather sufficient evidence (e.g., surveillance, informant reports) before obtaining a search warrant.

Question 12

Doctrine of Chain of Custody

For int rel of evud, it requires DOCUMENTING THE MIVEMENT of E fr uts Coll until its Pres in C, to Avoid TampAL Con

Answer 12

Explanation: This doctrine Ensures the INTEGRITY & RELIABILITY of seized items (e.g., drugs, weapons) as evidence in criminal cases.

It requires documenting the handling of evidence from the moment it is collected until it is presented in court to prevent tampering, alteration, or contamination.

Example: During a drug raid, the police must properly document the seizure of drugs, including details of who handled the evidence, where it was stored, and how it was transported to the laboratory for analysis. This documentation is crucial to ensure the admissibility of the evidence in court.

Question 13

Doctrine of Double Jeopardy

Prtects Ind from Prosec forvthe 2nd time of the SAME OFFENSE after prev ac or conv

Answer 13

Explanation: This doctrine PROTECTS individuals from being PROSECUTED or punished TWICE for the SAME offense after AC acquittal or conviction. It prevents the state from subjecting individuals to repeated trials or punishments for the same criminal act.

Example: If a person is acquitted of murder charges due to lack of evidence, the prosecution cannot bring the same murder charges against the person again, even if new evidence surfaces later.

Question 14

In a high-profile hazing case at a prominent university, several fraternity members are charged with violating the Anti-Hazing Act of 2018. During the hazing ritual, the victim was severely beaten, resulting in physical injuries, before ultimately dying from the ordeal. The prosecution wants to charge the accused with both hazing resulting in death and physical injuries. Which of the following best describes how the Doctrine of Absorption would apply in this case?

A) The accused should be charged separately for hazing resulting in death and for physical injuries
B) Only the charge of hazing resulting in death should be pursued, absorbing the physical injuries
C) The physical injuries charge should be pursued separately, with hazing as an aggravating circumstance
D) Both charges should be combined into a special complex crime

Answer 14

Answer: B) Only the charge of hazing resulting in death should be pursued, absorbing the physical injuries

Legal reasoning: According to the Doctrine of Absorption, if a specific crime is included or absorbed in another offense, only the main or principal offense is punishable. In this case, the Anti-Hazing Act of 2018 (as detailed in the search results) provides specific penalties for hazing resulting in death, which is considered the most severe outcome.

Section 14(a) of the Act states: “The penalty of reclusion perpetua and a fine of Three million pesos (₱3,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon those who actually planned or participated in the hazing if, as a consequence of the hazing, death, rape, sodomy, or mutilation results therefrom.”

The physical injuries inflicted during the hazing ritual are considered part of the act of hazing that led to the victim’s death. Therefore, these injuries are absorbed into the more serious crime of hazing resulting in death. Charging the accused separately for physical injuries would be redundant and go against the Doctrine of Absorption.

This application of the doctrine ensures that the most serious consequence of the criminal act (death) is appropriately addressed without duplicating charges for actions that were part of the same criminal episode. It also aligns with the legislative intent of the Anti-Hazing Act, which provides graduated penalties based on the severity of the outcome of hazing activities.

Question 15

Doctrine of Command Responsibility

Holds Sup Crim Liable for cr com by sub
IF 2

Answer 15

Explanation:
This doctrine holds superior officers criminally liable for crimes committed by their subordinates if they knew or should have known about the crimes but failed to prevent or punish them.

Example:
In cases of military or police misconduct, commanders may be held responsible for crimes committed by their troops if they were aware of the unlawful acts (e.g., torture, extrajudicial killings) but did not take appropriate action to stop or punish the perpetrators

Question 16

A high-profile drug trafficker is convicted under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The judge, citing the Doctrine of Indeterminate Sentence, imposes a sentence of 12 years and 1 day as minimum to 20 years as maximum. After serving 10 years with good behavior, the convict applies for parole. The Bureau of Corrections recommends parole, but there’s public outcry due to the severity of the crime. Which of the following best describes the legal situation?

A) The convict must be granted parole immediately as they have shown good behavior
B) The convict is not eligible for parole as they haven’t served the minimum sentence
C) The convict is eligible for parole consideration, but it’s not guaranteed
D) The public outcry should prevent the granting of parole regardless of eligibility

Answer 16

Answer: C) The convict is eligible for parole consideration, but it’s not guaranteed

Legal reasoning: The Doctrine of Indeterminate Sentence, as applied in the Philippines, allows for a sentence with a minimum and maximum term. In this case, the minimum term is 12 years and 1 day. According to the doctrine, once an offender has served the minimum term, they become eligible for parole consideration. However, eligibility does not guarantee release.

The convict in this scenario has served 10 years, which is less than the minimum term of 12 years and 1 day. Therefore, they are not yet eligible for parole based on the time served. However, good behavior and the recommendation from the Bureau of Corrections are factors that would be considered once the minimum term is completed.

It’s important to note that parole decisions involve a balance between rehabilitation goals and public safety concerns. The severity of the crime and public opinion, while not determinative, may be factors considered in the parole decision-making process.

This question highlights the complexities of applying the Doctrine of Indeterminate Sentence in high-profile cases, especially those involving serious offenses like drug trafficking, which is a significant issue in the Philippines. It also underscores the tension between rehabilitation efforts and public perceptions of justice in the criminal justice system.

Question 17

A new anti-terrorism law is enacted, which includes a provision allowing law enforcement to detain suspects for up to 14 days without a warrant. The law defines a “terrorist act” as any action that “creates a serious risk to public safety,” without further specificity. During a protest against government policies, several activists are arrested and detained under this law for allegedly inciting violence, though no actual violence occurred. The activists challenge their detention in court, arguing that their actions do not clearly fall under the definition of a “terrorist act.” How should the court interpret the law in this case?

A) Strictly interpret the law to include any action that could potentially lead to violence
B) Apply the law broadly to cover all forms of protest that challenge government authority
C) Interpret the vague definition of “terrorist act” in favor of the detained activists
D) Defer to law enforcement’s interpretation of what constitutes a “serious risk to public safety”

Answer 17

Answer: C) Interpret the vague definition of “terrorist act” in favor of the detained activists

Legal reasoning: According to the Doctrine of Pro Reo, when there is doubt in the interpretation of penal laws, courts should resolve the doubt in favor of the accused. In this case, the definition of a “terrorist act” as creating a “serious risk to public safety” is vague and open to interpretation. The lack of specificity in the law creates ambiguity about whether peaceful protest activities, even if they challenge government policies, constitute a terrorist act.

Given this ambiguity, and in line with the Doctrine of Pro Reo, the court should interpret the law narrowly and in favor of the accused activists. This interpretation would likely conclude that peaceful protest activities, absent any actual violence or clear and imminent threat to public safety, do not meet the threshold of a “terrorist act” under the law.

This approach upholds the principle of protecting individual rights and liberties in the face of ambiguous criminal statutes, which is particularly crucial in cases involving political expression and dissent. It also encourages legislators to draft clearer, more specific laws to avoid such ambiguities in the future.

Question 18

In a high-profile drug case, police officers conduct a raid and seize a large quantity of suspected shabu (methamphetamine). During the trial, the defense lawyer argues that the chain of custody was broken because:

1. The seizing officer failed to immediately mark the seized items at the place of seizure
2. The inventory was conducted at the police station instead of the place of arrest
3. Only two witnesses, instead of three, were present during the inventory
4. All of the above

Which of these arguments is most likely to succeed in challenging the admissibility of the evidence?

A) Only argument 1
B) Only argument 2
C) Only argument 3
D) All of the above arguments have merit

Answer 18

Answer: D) All of the above arguments have merit

Legal reasoning: In the Philippines, the chain of custody for drug-related cases is strictly governed by Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) and its Implementing Rules and Regulations. The law requires:

1. Immediate marking of seized items at the place of seizure
2. Inventory and photographing of seized items at the place of arrest or seizure
3. Presence of three witnesses during the inventory: an elected public official, a representative from the media, and a representative from the Department of Justice

Failure to comply with these requirements can lead to doubts about the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. While courts may consider substantial compliance in some cases, multiple violations of the chain of custody requirements (as presented in all three arguments) significantly weaken the prosecution’s case and may lead to acquittal based on reasonable doubt.

This question highlights the importance of strict adherence to chain of custody procedures in drug cases in the Philippines, a common issue given the country’s ongoing anti-drug campaign.

Question 19

In a high-profile anti-drug operation, several police officers under the command of Chief Inspector Santos are accused of extrajudicial killings. Evidence suggests that Chief Inspector Santos was aware of previous complaints about his officers’ conduct but took no action. During the investigation, it’s revealed that Santos:

1. Was not present during the operation
2. Had received reports of misconduct by these officers in past operations
3. Did not directly order the killings
4. Failed to implement proper training and oversight measures

Under the doctrine of command responsibility, which factor is LEAST likely to absolve Chief Inspector Santos of criminal liability?

A) His absence from the scene of the operation
B) His lack of direct orders for the killings
C) His previous knowledge of misconduct by the officers
D) The complexity of managing a large police force

Answer 19

Answer: C) His previous knowledge of misconduct by the officers

Legal reasoning: The doctrine of command responsibility holds superior officers accountable for crimes committed by their subordinates if they knew or should have known about the crimes but failed to prevent or punish them. In this scenario:

1. Absence from the scene (A) doesn’t necessarily absolve a commander of responsibility.
2. Lack of direct orders (B) doesn’t preclude responsibility if the commander failed to prevent known misconduct.
3. Previous knowledge of misconduct (C) is the strongest factor establishing command responsibility. It shows the commander was aware of potential issues but failed to act.
4. While managing a large force (D) can be challenging, it doesn’t excuse a failure to address known problems.

Chief Inspector Santos’ previous knowledge of misconduct, combined with his failure to take preventive or disciplinary action, strongly implicates him under the doctrine of command responsibility. This reflects current issues in the Philippines, where concerns about police conduct in anti-drug operations have raised questions about accountability at higher levels of command.

Question 19

Mega Manufacturing Corporation (MMC), a large corporation, is notorious for dumping hazardous waste illegally. The company’s CEO, Mr. Reyes, is aware of this practice but does nothing to stop it. The waste has caused significant environmental damage.

Question:

Can Mr. Reyes be held personally liable for the environmental damage caused by MMC’s illegal dumping, even though the act was committed by the corporation?

**A. Yes, because Mr. Reyes, as CEO, is directly responsible for the corporation’s actions.
B. Yes, if the court finds that MMC was used as a mere shell to avoid environmental regulations (Doctrine of Piercing the Veil).
C. No, only MMC can be held liable as a separate legal entity.
D. No, unless Mr. Reyes personally participated in the dumping activity.

Answer 19

Answer:

B. Yes, if the court finds that MMC was used as a mere shell to avoid environmental regulations (Doctrine of Piercing the Veil).

Reasoning:

The Philippine legal system generally recognizes corporations as separate legal entities. However, the Doctrine of Piercing the Veil allows the court to disregard this separation and hold the individuals behind the corporation liable if:

• The corporation is a mere shell used to evade legal obligations or commit fraud.
• There’s a clear disregard for the separate legal personality of the corporation (e.g., Mr. Reyes using MMC for his personal gain).

In this case, Mr. Reyes’ knowledge of the illegal dumping and his inaction suggest MMC might be used as a shell to avoid environmental regulations. If proven in court, the Doctrine of Piercing the Veil could hold Mr. Reyes personally liable for the environmental damage.

Note:

Options A and C highlight key aspects of corporate responsibility and separate legal personality. Option D focuses on direct participation, which isn’t the main concern here. The key is Mr. Reyes’ potential use of the corporation to evade legal consequences.

Question 20

Doctrine of Proximate Cause

Answer 20

Proximate cause refers to the direct and foreseeable consequence of a defendant’s criminal act that leads to injury or damage

Imagine John throws a rock at a window, intending to break it (criminal act). The rock bounces off the window and hits a passerby, causing injury. Here, John’s act of throwing the rock is the proximate cause of the injury, even though it wasn’t his direct intention to hit the person.