Title Crim-Canonical-Doctrines.pdf ✅

U.P LAW BOC abon3298 CRIMINAL LAW Page 1 of 48 abon3298 CRIMINAL LAW CANONICAL DOCTRINES CRIMINAL LAW 1 General Principles CASE SUB-TOPIC DOCTRINE NOTES Cardona v. People G.R. No. 244544 | July 6, 2020 | Carandang Mala in Se and Mala Prohibita An act prohibited by a special law does not automatically make it malum prohibitum. "When the acts complained of are inherently immoral, they are deemed mala in se, even if they are punished by a special law." The bench and bar must rid themselves of the common misconception that all mala in se crimes are found in the Revised Penal Code (RPC), while all mala prohibita crimes are provided by special laws. The better approach to distinguish between mala in se and mala prohibita crimes is the determination of the inherent immorality or vileness of the penalized act. In this case, the Court ruled that the violation of Sec. 195 of the OEC is mala in se despite being covered by a Special Law considering that what the section forbids is the intentional tearing or defacing of the ballot or the placement of a distinguishing mark. This doctrine is consistent with the rulings in the cases of Garcia v. CA (2006), Dungo v. People (2015). Felonies CASE SUB-TOPIC DOCTRINE NOTES People v. Angeles G.R. No. 224289 | August 14, 2019 | Lazaro- Javier Criminal Liabilities 3 Stages of Acts of Execution: (1) Attempted - when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly or over acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than this own spontaneous desistance (2) Frustrated - when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator (3) Consummated - when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present The doctrine on the crime committed if one survives the infliction of physical injuries is consistent with the ruling in the case of Esqueda v. People (2009). The doctrine on the proof of intent to kill is consistent with the rulings in the cases of Fantastico v. People (2015), People v. Jugueta (2016).
U.P LAW BOC abon3298 CRIMINAL LAW Page 2 of 48 abon3298 If one inflicts physical injuries on another but the latter survives, the crime committed is either consummated physical injuries, if the offender had no intention to kill the victim, or frustrated or attempted homicide or frustrated murder or attempted murder if the offender intends to kill the victim. Intent to kill may be proved by evidence of: (a) Motive; (b) Nature or number of weapons used in the commission of the crime; (c) Nature and number of wounds inflicted on the victim; (d) Manner the crime was committed; (e) Words uttered by the offender at the time the injuries are inflicted by him on the victim; and (f) Circumstances under which the crime was committed. People v. Bendecio G.R. No. 235016 | September 8, 2020 | Lazaro- Javier Criminal Liabilities Attempted Stage Attempted murder or attempted homicide is committed when the accused intended to kill the victim, as manifested by the use of a deadly weapon in the assault, and the wound/s sustained by the victim was/were not fatal. Complex Crimes When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies (i.e., a complex crime is committed), the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period. This doctrine is consistent with the ruling in the case of Palaganas v. People (2006). Labosta v. People G.R. No. 243926 | June 23, 2020 | J.C. Reyes, Jr. Circumstan- ces Affecting Criminal Liability Justifying Circumstance: Self-Defense When an accused invokes the justifying circumstance of self-defense, the burden of evidence shifts to him. This is because, by his admission, he is to be held criminally liable for the death of the victim unless he satisfactorily establishes the fact of self-defense. It is incumbent upon the accused to prove his innocence by clear and convincing evidence. To successfully claim self-defense, the accused must satisfactorily prove the concurrence of the following elements: 1. Unlawful aggression; 2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and 3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. In the instant case, the Court rejected petitioner’s plea of self-defense as he was in fact, the aggressor. He pushed the victim with the chair he was holding and while the victim This doctrine is consistent with the rulings in the cases of Napone, Jr. v. People (2017), People v. Doca (2020).
U.P LAW BOC abon3298 CRIMINAL LAW Page 3 of 48 abon3298 was on the ground, he stabbed the latter multiple times. People v. Doca G.R. No. 233479 | October 16, 2019 | Lazaro- Javier Circumstan- ces Affecting Criminal Liability Justifying Circumstance: Self-Defense Unlawful aggression is the indispensable element of self-defense. If no unlawful aggression attributed to the victim is established, self-defense is unavailing, for there is nothing to repel. In the instant case, it was held that there was no unlawful aggression emanating from the victim when the appellant stabbed the victim while the latter was simply passing him by on his way home. Aggravating/Qualifying Circumstance: Treachery The essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate and without warning and is done in a swift and unexpected way, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim with no chance to resist or escape. In the instant case, it was held that there was no treachery when there are already tell-tale signs of the impending danger. Here, the victim was walking home when he saw the appellant standing inside a waiting shed, drunk, angry and specifically looking for him. Appellant was shirtless, revealing a knife strapped around his waist. Despite this telltale signs of impending danger, the victim still proceeded to walk towards the waiting shed where he met his demise. Mitigating Circumstance: Voluntary Surrender Voluntary surrender requires the following: 1. Accused has not been actually arrested; 2. Accused surrenders himself to a person in authority or the latter's agent; and 3. Surrender is voluntary. The essence of voluntary surrender is spontaneity and the intent of the accused to give himself up and submit himself to the authorities, either because he acknowledges his guilt or he wishes to save the authorities the trouble and expense that may be incurred for his search and capture. The doctrine on self- defense is consistent with the rulings in the cases of People v. Fontanilla (2012), People v. Tanduyan (1994). The doctrine on Treachery is consistent with the rulings in People v. Pilpa (2018), People v. Albino (2019). The doctrine on Voluntary Surrender is consistent with the ruling in People v. Manzano (2018). People v. Lagrita G.R. No. 233194 | September Circumstan- ces Affecting Criminal Liability Justifying Circumstance: Self-Defense Flight (e.g., not voluntarily surrendering, but being arrested by the police two years after the alleged crime) is a veritable badge of guilt and negates the plea of self-defense. This doctrine is consistent with the ruling in the case of People v. Japag (2018).