CRIMINAL LAW

Arellano University
CRIMINAL DEFENSES
 NEGATIVE
 Presumption of Innocence
 AFFIRMATIVE
 Confession and Avoidance; Presumed Guilty
 Justifying Circumstances (Art. 11)
 Exempting Circumstances (Art. 12)
 Absolutory Causes; Public Policy;
-e.g. Arts. 6 par. 3; 7; 16; 247; 332
 Other Defenses
-e.g. Prescription (Art. 89); Pardon (Art. 344); Instigation
CRIMINAL DEFENSES
 Justifying Circumstances; Act is not criminal; Source of Civil
Liability? except Avoidance of Greater Evil (Art. 101); Liability
of Actor and Other Participants?
 e.g. Self-defense; Defense of Relatives; Defense of Strangers;
Avoidance of Greater Evil or Injury; Fulfillment of Duty or
Exercise of a Right; Obedience to a Lawful Order

 Exempting Circumstances; Act is criminal; Source of Civil

Liability? except Accident because of the absence of dolo or
culpa; Liability of Actor? Liability of Other Participants?
 e.g. Imbecility; Insanity; Minority; Accident; Compulsion of an
Irresistible Force; Impulse of an Uncontrollable Fear of an Equal
or Greater Injury; Lawful and Insuperable Causes
CRIMINAL DEFENSES
 BASIS OF JUSTIFICATION OR EXEMPTION
 Lack of Intelligence
-Insanity; Imbecility; Minority
 Lack of Freedom
-Irresistible Force; Uncontrollable Fear
 Lack of Evil Intent
-Lawful and Insuperable Causes; Self-Defense; Defense of
Relatives; Defense of Strangers; Avoidance of Greater Evil or
Injury; Fulfillment of Duty or Exercise of a Right; Obedience to
a Lawful Order
 Lack of Evil Intent and Fault
-Accident
SELF-DEFENSE
 Basis?
 Self-Preservation
 Reverse Trial; Elements?
 Unlawful Aggression on the part of the person killed or
injured;
 Reasonable Necessity of the Means Employed to
Prevent or Repel the unlawful aggression;
 Lack of Sufficient Provocation on the part of the person
defending himself.
SELF-DEFENSE
 Unlawful Aggression
 Attack or Threat; Life, Limb or Right of the Accused
 Actual or Imminent
 Unknown Authorship? Source is Third Person?
 Actual Aggression
Actual physical force or Actual use of weapon putting
the defender’s life or limb in danger.
 Heated exchange of words?
 Push or Shove?
 Playful Kick?
 Actual use of weapon but missed?
SELF-DEFENSE
 Imminent Aggression
 Impending Attack; At the point of happening putting the
defender’s life and limb in danger; or
 Offensive and Positive Strong Threat; Showing wrongful
intent to inflict injury
 Threatening or Intimidating Attitude?
 Imaginary Threat?
-Unarmed Victim; Insult without Assault; Drunkness
 Belief of Imminent Attack? Speculative
-Except: Reasonable Basis and Mistake of Fact
 Threat with a Weapon?
-Except: External Acts and Circumstances
SELF-DEFENSE
 Aggression must be Unlawful; Offensive and Criminal
 Defensive Attack? e.g. Accused is the unlawful aggressor
 Non-felonious Attack even if Offensive?
-e.g. Absolutory Cause (Art. 247); What if the accused is
unaware of the marriage?
-e.g. Exercise of a Right; Doctrine of Self-help

 Performance of Duty? e.g. Arrest and Searches

-Except: Unlawful Arrest/Unnecessary Force; Mistake of Fact

 Presence of Exempting Circumstance? e.g. Insanity

SELF-DEFENSE
 Aggression must be Continuous; Existing at the time of defense
 Retaliation? Except: minor injuries that do not contribute to the
death of the victim; or less violent means to ensure that no further
aggression would come from the victim.

 Defender’s Return?
 Disarmed Aggressor? Except: Possibility of Regaining Weapon
 Fleeing Aggressor? Exceptions:
-Pursuit to Secure from Danger; The aggression is continuing
when the purpose of the aggressor is to take a more advantageous
position to insure the success of the attack.
-Pursuit to Arrest the Unlawful Aggressor (Performance of Duty)
SELF-DEFENSE
 Aggression must be Non-Mutual; Exclusively from the Victim
 Incidental to a Fight? Agreeing to Fight? e.g. Duel
 Joining or Facing a Fight? e.g. Mutual Aggressors
 Unaccepted Challenge? Violation of the terms of Duel?
 Burden of Proof; Self-Defense can easily be fabricated.
 Reciprocal Aggression is presumed; Non-presentation of the
aggressor's weapon is fatal; Improbability that the victim
attacked the accused; Accused has a greater motive to commit
the crime; Other Factors Negating self-defense: e.g. number,
nature and location of the wounds; failure to report and to
surrender; accused did not sustain injury.
SELF-DEFENSE
 Reasonable Necessity and Means; Unnecessary Blows?
 Repel Actual Unlawful Aggression
 Prevent Imminent Unlawful Aggression
 Necessary Blows? Dictated by instinct of self-preservation
 Controlling Blows?
-To ensure no further aggression; To arrest the aggressor
 Retreat to the Wall?
-A Private Individual must Escape or Take Refuge
-A Police Officer has the Duty to Overcome the aggressor

 Stand Ground When in Right? Face the aggressor if escaping

would place your back at the risk of being attacked.
SELF-DEFENSE
 Rational Equivalence; Commensurate; Factors:
 Nature or quality of the weapon;
 Non-availability of other weapon in lieu of a deadlier weapon;
 Urgency of the situation to coolly select less deadly weapon;
 Urgency of the situation which prevents the accused from
thinking rationally and which dictates him to act with the instinct
of self-preservation (e.g. minor injury);
 Character, size and other circumstances of the aggressor and the
defender (superiority in strength);
 Place and time of commission;
 Element of surprise (darkness of the night);
 Invasion of property (robbery and theft);
 Duty of the defender as peace officer to overcome his opponent.
SELF-DEFENSE

 Lack of Sufficient Provocation; No Provocation?

 Annoying Act?
 Inadequate to Arouse Aggression?
 Source is the Third Person?
 Not Immediate or Proximate to the Aggression?
 Accused’s Challenge?
-If accepted by the victim, there is no unlawful aggression;
-If unaccepted by the victim, there is sufficient provocation;
-If accepted by the victim and the accused thereafter took flight,
there is still sufficient provocation.
SELF-DEFENSE

 Lawful Act? Even if Sufficiently Provocative

-Performance of Duty? e.g. Arrest for Traffic Violations
-Complete Self-Defense?; Incomplete Self-Defense?
 Aggression v. Provocation: e.g. Throwing stones
-Accused’s Aggression? –No Self-defense
-Accused’s Provocation? –No self-defense
-Victim’s Aggression? –Self-defense is present
-Victim’s Provocation? –Mitigating Circumstance
DEFENSE OF RIGHTS

 Unlawful Aggression must constitute a Crime.

 Injurious to One’s Honor; Libel & Slander by Deed
 Breach of Promise of Marriage?
Aggressive Libel? Defensive Libel?
 Interval of Time is not Retaliation
 Privileged Communication?
 Unnecessary or Unreasonable Reply?
 Defense of Property Rights;
-Even if not coupled with attack against person
BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME

 People v. Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, January 15, 2004

 Passion and Obfuscation
 Republic Act No. 9262, March 27, 2004
 Persons suffering with BWS do not incur criminal and
civil liability notwithstanding the absence of any of the
elements for justifying circumstance of self-defense.

 BWS -pattern of psychological and behavioral symptoms

found in women living in battering relationships as a
result of cumulative abuse.
BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME

 Elements:
 The battered woman and the batterer must have a marital,
sexual or dating relationship; Casual Acquaintance?;
 The battered woman must be suffering from physical and
psychological or emotional distress;
 The physical and psychological or emotional distress resulted
from cumulative abuse by the batterer; The couple must
undergo the battering cycle at least twice;
 The battered woman must have actually feared imminent harm
from her batterer and honestly believed in the need to kill him
in order to save her life.
BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME

 Volition Test v. Cognition Test

 Accused may be convicted if she voluntarily and deliberately
killed her husband. In determining the mental state of the
battered woman, the court must use the volition test (total
deprivation of freedom) and not cognition test (complete
deprivation of intelligence).

 Accused may invoke self-defense if BWS is absent

 Battered Child?
DEFENSE OF RELATIVE
 Basis? Humanitarian Reasons and Impulse of Blood
-Spouse, Ascendants, Descendants, Legitimate, Natural Adopted
Brothers or Sisters; Relatives by Affinity in the same degrees
(parents-in-law; children-in-law, brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law;
What if the marriage is already dissolved?);Relatives by
Consanguinity within fourth civil degree.

 Motive of the Accused is Immaterial;

 Accused has no participation in the Relative’s provocation
 Accused’s Aggression?
 Honest Belief that relative is victim of unlawful aggression?
 Knowledge of the Agreement to Fight?
DEFENSE OF STRANGER

 Basis? When a person may protect himself in his own

defense, another may do it for him.
 Anyone not considered a relative
 Motive of the Accused is Material
 Accused is not induced by revenge, resentment or evil motive
 e.g. Admission (spurred by anger)
 e.g. Circumstantial Evidence (nature and number of wounds)

 Breaking up the fight? –Without intentionally and discriminately

wounding or killing the mutual aggressors.
AVOIDANCE OF GREATER EVIL
 Basis? State of Necessity; Self-Preservation;
Civil Liability? Article 101 of the RPC (proportion to the benefit)
 Dolo? Culpa? Damages? e.g. Jettison
 Elements?
 Evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
 Expected or Anticipated Evil?
 Injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it;
 No other practical and less harmful means of preventing
the evil.
FULFILLMENT OF DUTY
 Basis? Lack of Evil Intent
-Principal Intent must be assessed; e.g. kidnapping/EJK

 Elements?
 Accused acted in the performance of a duty; and
-e.g. Warrantless Arrest; Use of Necessary Force
-Shoot to Kill?; Accused is not on duty?

 Injury caused or the offense committed should

have been the necessary consequence of due
performance of duty.
-Presumption of Regularity; Privileged Mitigating?
EXERCISE OF A RIGHT
 Basis? Lack of Evil Intent; Doctrine of Self-help
 Elements?
 Accused acted in the exercise of a right; and
-e.g. Owner/Possessor of a Property
-PD 957; Suspension of Amortization Payment

 Injury caused or the offense committed should

have been the necessary consequence of lawful
exercise of right.
-No Presumption of Regularity?
EXERCISE OF OFFICE
 Basis? Lack of Evil Intent
 Elements?
 Accused acted in the exercise of office; and
-Office is a right and correspondent duty to exercise a
public trust. It is an assigned duty or function.
-e.g. Death Executioner; Doctors

 Injury caused or the offense committed should

have been the necessary consequence of lawful
exercise of office.
OBEDIENCE TO LAWFUL ORDER
 Basis? Lack of Evil Intent
 Elements?
 A superior issued an order;
-e.g. Writ of Demolition; Search Warrant

 Order must be for some lawful purpose; and

-Unlawful Order coupled with threats of harm?
-Mistake of Fact?

 Subordinate used lawful means to carry such order.

-Within the limits prescribed by law
IMBECILITY
 Basis? Lack of Intelligence; Civil Liability?
 Definition? Feeblemindedness or Childishness
 An imbecile must be deprived completely of reason or
discernment and freedom of will at the time of
committing the crime.
 A person who is advanced in age but has a mental
development between 2 and 7 years of age is exempted.
He cannot distinguish right from wrong.
 An imbecile has no lucid interval.
INSANITY
 Basis? Lack of Intelligence; Presumption of Sanity
-Defect in the brain; More or less permanent diseased or
disordered mental condition; Occasional Insanity?

 Offender did not act during Lucid Interval.

 Cognition Test v. Volition Test?
 Irresistible homicidal impulse? Kleptomaniac?
(mitigating circumstance of illness)
 Drug Addiction and Alcoholism? Pedophilia?
 Schizophrenia (dementia praecox)?
 Somnambulism (sleep-walking)?
 Senile dementia (not mere second childhood)?
 Selective Amnesia? Hypnotism?
INSANITY
 Cognition Test; Lack of Intelligence is not present:
 Intent to surrender (he knew what he had done);
 Showing of Remorse (inconsistent with insanity);
 Narration and Re-enactment (shows that he was in full
possession of his faculties);
 Revenge (admission that he killed the victim out of
anger); and
 Awareness of his motion (emotions, bearings and
temperament).
INSANITY
 Burden of Proof:
 To prove insanity, the defense must present
evidence of the accused’s mental condition during a
reasonable period of time before or at the very
moment the felony is committed.

 Proof of insanity after the commission of the

crime or during trial is inconsequential, except:
circumstantial evidence.
MINORITY
 Basis? Lack of Intelligence; Civil Liability?
 R.A. 9344? Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility
 15 years old and below:
-Conclusive Presumption of Lack of Intelligence

 Above 15 years old but below 18 years old:

-Disputable Presumption of Lack of Intelligence
-Exempted if minor acted without DISCERNMENT
-Criminally Liable if minor acted with discernment

 Article 68 of the RPC;

-Minority is a privileged mitigating circumstance
MINORITY
 DISCERNMENT? Must be alleged in the Information
-Mental capacity to understand the difference between right
and wrong as shown in the conduct of the offender and manner
of committing the crime.

 Discernment is not Evil Intent

-Criminal Design v. Moral Significance?

 Intelligence? Present in both kinds of felonies

- A minor may be liable for a culpable felony

 Status Offenses? Section 57 of RA 9344;

-e.g. Curfew Violations and Parental Disobedience
ACCIDENT
 Basis? Lack of Evil Intent and Fault; Civil Liability?
-An occurrence that lies beyond the bounds of humanly
foreseeable consequences.

 Elements?
 Accused is performing a lawful act; and
-Self-defense? Incomplete Self-defense?
-Error in Personae? Aberratio Ictus?

 Act performed is without dolo and culpa.

-Foreseeable Event?
-Accidental Self-defense? Toledo v. People, GR 158057, 9/24/2004
IRRESISTIBLE FORCE
 Basis? Lack of Freedom; Acting without will is insufficient
-“An act done by me against my will is not my act.”

 Elements? Civil Liability? Article 101 of the RPC (Subsidiarily)

 Force compelled the accused to commit a crime; and
-Violence or Physical Force?
-Threat with use of Deadly Weapon?
-Threat without use of Deadly Weapon?
-Liability of the Person who used violence or force?

 Force used must be irresistible.

-Accused is reduced to a mere instrument despite resistance
-No opportunity to escape or resist compulsion
UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR
 Basis? Lack of Freedom
 Elements? Civil Liability? Article 101 of the RPC (Subsidiarily)
 Existence of an uncontrollable fear of an injury;
-Presence of Conspiracy?

 Fear of an injury must be real and imminent; and

-Threat of Future Injury? Speculative and Illusory

 Fear of an injury is greater than or at least equal to that

committed. e.g. Life v. Property?
DISTINCTIONS:
 Irresistible Force (IF) v. Uncontrollable Fear (UF)?
 In IF, the offender used violence or physical force;
 In UF the offender employs intimidation or threat.

 In IF, violence or force operates directly upon the person of

the accused;
 In UF, the threatened act is directed against third person.

 In IF, the injury feared may be of a lesser degree than the

damage caused by the accused;
 In UF, the evil must be greater or at least equal to the damage
caused to avoid it.
LAWFUL OR INSUPERABLE CAUSE
 Basis? Lack of Evil Intent; Civil Liability?
 The exemption is applicable to culpable felonies.
 Elements?
 Accused failed to perform an act required by law; and
 Accused is prevented by lawful or insuperable cause.
-e.g. Art. 125 of the RPC; Delay in the Delivery of Detained
Persons to the Proper Judicial Authorities.
-e.g. Confidentiality of Religious Confession
THANK YOU