You are on page 1of 5

Notes from the book of Reyes in Criminal Law 1 (pages 205-221) Fulfillment of duty People vs.

Delima Delima was acquitted with costs de oficio because the killing was done in the performance of a duty. People vs. Bisa Same ruling (Delima case) applied to the case of a guard who killed a detained prisoner while escaping. Valcorza vs. People Delima ruling applied to a case where a policeman shot an escaping detainee charged with a relatively minor offense of stealing a chicken to death. People vs. Lagata The guard could have fired at the prisoner in self-defense or if absolutely necessary to avoid his escape. Shooting an offender who refused to surrender is justified Duty of peace officers to arrest violators of law not only when they are provided with warrant of arrest but also when they are not provided with said warrant if the violation committed in their own presence; and this duty extends even to cases the purpose of which is merely to prevent a crime to be consummated. Shooting a thief who refuse d to be arrested is NOT justified No violence or unnecessary force shall be used in making an arrest, and the person arrested shall not be subject to any greater restraint than is necessary for his detention. Legitimate performance of duty A killing is justified under the circumstance that the police officers/NBI acted pursuant to law when he tried to discharge his duty. Illegal performance of duty (See People vs, Peralta) The duty to arrest the suspects did not include any right to shoot the victim to death. Self-defense vs. consequence of felonious act -Fulfillment of duty to prevent escape of a prisoner is different from self-defense because they are based on different set f principles. -In People vs. Delima, the rule of elf-defense does not apply because the unlawful aggression of the prisoner has stopped when he fled. The killing was done IN THE PERFORMANCE OF A DUTY. -The act of the public officer in the fulfillment of his duty may appear as aggression but NOT UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION. -In People vs. Bisa, the guard is acting in the fulfillment of duty.

96 of the RPC. Delimacase would not warrant self-defense because of the absence of aggression while Bisa case would have been a commission of a felony. even beyond the prescriptive period for an action of forcible entry. Depante was ALSO criminally liable for hitting his querida giver her gender. Par. the usurperǯs possession has become firm by the lapse of time. Injuring anybody who tries to be in possession of his property is justified if he is protecting his property. Of office -The executioner of the Bilibid Prison CANNOT be held liable for murder for the execution performed by him because he was merely acting in the lawful exercise of his office. the result would be different. However.-In the cases of Delima and Bisa. -He may use such force as may be reasonably necessary to repel/prevent an actual/threatened unlawful physical invasion/usurpation of the property. -If the property is immovable. 6: Obedience to an order issued for some lawful purpose Any person acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose. 429: The owner/lawful possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. -A surgeon who amputated the leg of a patient to save him from gangrene is not liable for the crime of mutilation. -ONLY theft. Doctrine of SELF-HELP of Art. Depante Depante hit his querida for grabbing his five peso bill from him. malicious mischief cannot be committed by a wife against her husband. Lawful exercise of right or office Of right Civil Code Art. his criminal liability is mitigated under Art. Requisites: . the lawful possessor must resort to competent authority to recover his property. The actual invasion of property may consist a mere disturbance of possession or of a real dispossession -If mere disturbance of possession. A delay. will bar the right to the use of force. His penalty lower by one/two degrees than that what is prescribed by law could be imposed. His querida would have committed attempted robbery. such as when due to the ignorance of dispossession. Once. 429 of the Civil Code applied in Criminal Law People vs. force may be used against it any time as long as it continues. had it been that the accused were private persons and not in performance of duty. swindling. there should be no delay in the use of force to recover it. Robbery can be committed by a wife against her husband. even if excusable.

When the order is not for a lawful purpose. Absence of the third requisite -Execution of a convict a day before the scheduled date is unlawful on the ground that it is against the provisions of Art. commit to the care of some institution/person mentioned in Art. which he. the subordinate who ob eyed it is criminally liable 1) Preparation of falsified document for a superior with full knowledge of its falsity 2) Torturing an individual by a soldier per instruction of a military officer The subordinate is not liable for carrying out an illegal order of his superior. One who acts without intelligence. One who acts without intelligence. or intent. or on the absence of negligence on the part of the accused. 80 RPC -if criminally irresponsible. Basis Exemption based on the COMPLETE ABSENCE of intelligence. freedom of action. 80 . without any fault/negligence on his part . and obeyed orders IN GOOD FAITH. Exempting circumstances from criminal liability 1) an imbecile or an insane person 2) a person under 9 years of age (now 15) 3) a person over 9 years but below 15. 82. Under RPC. if he is not aware of the illegality of the order and he is not negligent -The accused acted upon the orders of superior officers. Article 12. commit to the care of family -if criminally responsible. in which case the minor shall be proceeded in accordance with Art. as a military subordinate. Exempting circumstances Definition Exempting circumstances (non-imputability) are those grounds for exemption from punishment because there is wanting the agent of the crime of any of the conditions which make the act voluntary or negligent. freedom of action or intent does not act with malice. without being aware of their illegality.1) That AN ORDER has been issued by a superior 2) That such an order must be for some lawful purpose 3) That the means used by the subordinate to carry out said order is lawful -Both the person who gives the order and the person who executes it must be acting within the limitations provided by law. The executioner is guilty of murder. he is NOT LIABLE because he had NO CRIMINAL INTENT and he was NOT NEGLIGENT. a person must act with malice or negligence to be criminally liable. unless he acted with discernment. could not question. freedom of action or fault does not act with negligence.

12 is a matter of DEFENSE and must be proved by the defendant satisfactorily in the courts Imbecile/insane person Imbecile Ȃ exempted in all cases from criminal liability. Presumption is always in favor of sanity. insanity at the time of trial Insanity at the time of commission Ȃ exempted from criminal liability Insanity at the time of trial Ȃ criminally liable but trial is postponed to wait for the mental restoration of the accused Evidence of insanity . no criminal liability arises. Insanity at the time of commission vs. there is crime committed but no criminal liability arises -One who acts by virtue of any exempting circumstances commits a crime although by complete absence by any of the conditions which constitute free will/voluntariness of the act. Circumstantial evidence will suffice. It is only a mitigating circumstance. especially if the offender has not lost consciousness of his acts. which shall ask permission first from the Director of Health. has a mental development similar to a children of age 2 and 7. Burden of proof Any circumstance mentioned in Art. Procedure when the imbecile/insane committed a felony -Court shall order his confinement in a hospital/asylum and shall not be allowed to leave without approval of the court. Burden of proof to show insanity -The defense must prove that the accused is insane in the time of committing the crime.4) any person performing a lawful ac with due care but causes injury by accident 5) any person who acts under the compulsion of irresistible force In exempting circumstances. completely deprived of discernment and freedom of the will at the time of committing the crime Insanity Ȃ cannot be exempted if proven that he committed the act during LUCID INTERVAL or when the person ACTS WITH INTELLIGENCE To constitute insanity Ȃ complete deprivation of intelligence or that there be a total deprivation of the freedom of the will Mere abnormality of mental faculties is not enough . How much evidence is necessary to overthrow presumption of sanity -Evidence of the condition of the accusedǯs mind before and aft er of the commission of the crime.

presumption of continuance does not arise. See cases 1-5 for the samples when defense of insanity is incredible . insanity at the time of the commission of the crime must be also proved.-Must refer to the time preceding the act under the prosecution or to the very moment of its execution. Previously adjudged and committed to asylums are presumed to continue to be insane. -Occasional or intermittent insanity. he cannot be acquitted. it s presumed that the crime happened in one of them. Insanity proved at another time. If the insanity is subsequent to the commission of the crime. He is presumed sane while committing the crime. When the defendant had lucid intervals.