Doctrines in Crim Law Flashcards
Doctrine of Pro Reo
D in i of PL, Resolve D in F of Acc
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.
Doctrine of Indeterminate sentence
In imp of Sen, it allows for min max
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.
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
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.
Doctrine of Indivisibility
Treats the phases in the commission of the felonious act as an INDIVISIBLE WHOLE.
Effect: Actor is criminally liable from ALL the ACTS
Doctrine of Irresistible Force
States that an A done in compulsion of an IrrFo is NOT PUN bec the per acted without V
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.
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
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.
Doctrine of Piercing Veil of corporate Fiction
Holds bod or off PERSONLY LIABLE for corprate acts
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.
Doctrine of Supervening event
Allows for charges to be dismissed
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.
Doctrine of Last clear chance
Holds the D who had the LAST OPP to Av acc but FAILED despite the N of other Party
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.
Doctrine of Operation of Law
Acts done in violation of a Special law but NOT PUNISHABLE thereunder will be punished Under RPC.
Doctrine of Probable Cause
Before the 2, iss of sw, wa, the J
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.
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
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.
Doctrine of Double Jeopardy
Prtects Ind from Prosec forvthe 2nd time of the SAME OFFENSE after prev ac or conv
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.
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: 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.
Doctrine of Command Responsibility
Holds Sup Crim Liable for cr com by sub
IF 2
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