Felonies Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

What are the two components of felonies by dolo?

A

o 1. Act and omission punishable by law (physical act)
o 2. Mens rea (intent)
For felonies by dolo, one is not criminally liable if there is no criminal intent.

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

What about culpa?

A

Not intent, but negligence, imprudence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill

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

May someone be held criminally liable for crimes of omission?

A

YES. The following must concur:
 1. There is a positive duty provided by law
 2. Accused acted voluntarily to not do a positive duty
 3. Criminal intent in refusing to do it
o Examples: misprision of treason, prevaricacion (Art. 208 of RPC), fraud on treasury

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

What is mistake of fact?

A

An error that is not caused by the neglect of a legal duty on the part of the person committing the error but rather consists of an unconscious ignorance of a past or present material event or circumstance

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

What is abberatio ictus and what are its implications?

A

This is mistake in the victim of the blow. There is still criminal liability, which is generally increased (because it either becomes a complex crime or two separate crimes – against the intended and the real victim).

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

Can treachery apply to abberatio ictus?

A

Yes, because if the accused fired at his intended target but missed, the victims are helpless to defend themselves.

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

What is error in personae and its implications?

A

This is mistake in the identity. It may or may not lower criminal liability depending on the crime committed and if the intended crime is of equal or different gravity.

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

X intended to kill Y, but instead killed his father, Z by mistake. What is X Criminal Liability?

A

Instead of homicide, it became parricide. In this case, Art. 49 will govern: error in personae becomes mitigating (apply maximum period of homicide as penalty).

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What is praeter intentionem and its implications?

A

The accused did not intend to commit so grave a wrong as that committed. This is a mitigating circumstance under Art. 13.

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

What is the rule on specific intent felonies?

A

In specific intent felonies, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt the specific intent. But sometimes, specific intent may be presumed.

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

Must motive be proved for dolo?

A

Not in general. Motive is not an essential element of crime. But there are instances where motive is a prerequisite to conviction of accused.
 Political crimes –If the crime committed, for instance murder, is in pursuance of political motive in rebellion or coup d’etat, it is absorbed by the crime.
 Death by exceptional circumstances – killed wife and paramour who were having sexual intercourse. Not criminally liable for homicide, if motive is to avenge dishonor. But if he killed the wife for some other motive, and not due to exceptional circumstances, then he is criminally liable.
Motive, however, is useful when there is doubt whether the accused committed the crime or as regards the identity of the accused

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

When is criminal intent not needed to commit a crime?

A
  1. Culpa

2. Crimes malum prohibitum

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

Is reckless imprudence under 365 a felony under Art. 3?

A

Yes. It is a quasi-offense.

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

Does mistake in the identity of the victim constitute reckless imprudence?

A

 No. Mistake in identity is not culpa.
 Ex. Policemen were trying to arrest an escapee, and they saw a man sleeping. They thought the man was the escapee. HELD: The felony was dolo, not culpa, because the killing was deliberate.

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

May there be a crime of frustrated homicide through reckless imprudence?

A

Frustrated homicide requires intent to kill. This is incompatible with recklessness, negligence, or imprudence.

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

Can there be conspiracy resulting from negligence?

A

There can be no conspiracy resulting from negligence, because conspiracy is the product of deliberate agreement evincing intent.

17
Q

If the information charges an intentional felony but what is proved is culpable felony, can the accused be convicted?

A

Yes, because the greater includes the lesser offense

18
Q

Can more than one person be liable for killing the same person, one by dolo and one by culpa?

A

Yes

19
Q

3 people went to carnival. X was mentally challenged. Y poured gasoline on X. Z lit a match and burned X. Determine the Criminal Liability

A

Y who poured gasoline was liable for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. He should have anticipated that after pouring gasoline, someone could light a match – lack of foresight. Z is liable for felony by dolo – deliberate act. (P v. Pugay)

20
Q

Are crimes punishable by SPLs automatically crimes malum prohibitum?

A

Not all. Some can be malum in se such as plunder and violation of the election code

21
Q

Can one be liable for crime defined by SPL, commit another felony and then become liable for a special complex crime?

A

Yes. The anti-carnapping law (RA 6539). If the offender kills the driver or occupant to take the car, he is guilty of special complex crime of carnapping with murder.

22
Q

Two persons went to the public forest and cut timber, which is a violation of the Forestry Code. They were convicted, on basis of conspiracy. The court ruled that they were guilty to conspire to violate the Forestry Code. Is the SC decision correct? Can there be conspiracy to commit malum prohibitum?

A

No. The SC is wrong. Under Art. 8, they must agree to commit a crime (felony). Thus, this does not apply to malum prohibitum. (Tigoy v. P)