You are on page 1of 7


Accessorious sequitur

2. Positivist Theory

3. Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege

4. Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea

5. Ignoratia facti excusat

DEFINITION One who is an accessory to the crime cannot be guilty of a more serious crime than the principal offender. That a man is subdued occasionally by a strange and morbid phenomenon which constrains him to do wrong, in spite of or contrary to his volition. There is no crime where there is no law punishing it. The phrase “punished by law” should be understood to mean “punished by the Revised Penal Code” and not by a special law. A crime is not committed if the mind of the person performing to act complained be innocent. The general rule is that if it is proved that the accused committed the criminal act charged, it will be presumed that the act was done with criminal intention and that it is for the accused to rebut this presumption. Ignorance or mistake of fact relieves the accused from criminal liability. Mistake of fact is a misapprehension of fact on the part of the person who caused injury to


6. Aberratio Ictus There is a mistake in the blow. Accesio Cedit Principali Accessory right must yield to the principal . however. An honest mistake of fact destroys the presumption of criminal intent which arises upon the commission of a felonious act. Accesorium Sequitur Accessory follows the principal Principale 13. however hard or harsh its effect might be. He is not. Dura lex sed lex The law is harsh but it is the law. Blow or stroke gone astray as when a person receives a blow or a bullet intended for another. criminally liable. 11.another. Any interpretation of the law is restricted towards its application. must be an ambiguously and unequivocally clear so as to call for application. Praeter Intentionem The injurious result is greater than that intended 10. 12. because he did not act with criminal intent. That law. Actus me invite non est meus An act done by me against my will actus is not my act 8. Error in personae Mistake of identity of the victim 7. El que es causa de la causa es He who is the cause of the cause is causa del mal causado the cause of the evil caused. however. This maxim enunciates the supremacy of the law. 9.

or 4) laws which alter the rules of evidence to make it substantially easier to convict. Per our Constitution. ‘mere performance of the prohibited act’ does not necessarily justify imposition of the penalty provided by the special law. Ex post facto law Law making an act criminal after its performance. or makes it greater than when it was committed. while not creating new offenses. 2) laws which. 3) laws which prescribe greater punishment for a crime already done. In dubiss reus est absolvendus 16. or authorizes conviction upon less or different testimony than the law required when the offense was committed. It is essential for the court to determine whether . Mala prohibita All doubts should be resolved in favor of the accused Offense that is inherently wrong An act made an offense by law or statute. 15.14. aggravates the seriousness of a crime. Mala in se 17. ex post facto laws are: 1) statutes that make an act criminal when such act was not an offense when committed. In non-possessory mala prohibita offenses.

The offenses therefore merge together.18. For example. The merger doctrine in the common law of criminal law requires that lesser included charges merge into more serious offenses charged. and the defendant can be convicted of only the robbery. manslaughter cannot act as the "underlying felony" for the purposes of a felony murder charge. Solicitation to commit a crime and attempt to commit a crime. Merger Doctrine imposition of such penalty upon the responded will be best serve the best interest of the allegedly wronged society with the noble purposes of the law. because a robbery includes an assault(dubious—see talk page) . since it would have the effect of making all manslaughters felony murder. although not strictly speaking lesser . or only the assault in the first case. and only the manslaughter in the second. Conviction should not glorify the practice of the ‘actual wrong doer’ if he is other than the accused. Similarly. a criminal defendant could not be convicted of both assault and robbery stemming from a single event.

which does not merge into the completed crime. permitting defendants to be convicted of both the lesser included charge and the greater charge. Some states have eliminated the merger doctrine. an important exception to the merger doctrine is the crime of conspiracy. Typically deadly force is considered justified. This doctrine is an American legal doctrine that designates a person's abode (or.19. in some states. and a defense of justifiable homicide applicable.g.. Castle Doctrine included offenses. in cases "when the actor reasonably fears imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to him or . merge into the completed crime. any legally-occupied place [ from legal responsibility/prosecution for the consequences of the force [1] used. to use force (up to and including deadly force) to defend against an intruder . in certain circumstances. However. a vehicle or workplace]) as a place in which that person has certain protections and immunities permitting him or her.

Defendants seeking to rely on this defense argue that they should not be held liable for their actions as a crime because their conduct was necessary to prevent some greater harm and when that conduct is not excused under some other more specific provision of law such as selfdefense. Doctrine of common purpose The doctrine of common purpose. joint enterprise. but a set of principles which is incorporated in some form in the law of most states. criminal law.[1] The doctrine is not a defined law that can be invoked.herself or another". or joint criminal enterprise is a legal doctrine in some common law jurisdictions which . 20. 22. common design. Doctrine of Necessity In U. Accesorious sequitur One who is an accessory to the crime cannot be guilty of a more serious crime than the principal offender 21.S. Except for a few statutory exemptions and in some medical cases [1] there is no corresponding defense in English law for murder. necessity may be either a possible justification or an exculpation for breaking the law.

on all the participants to a riot who knew. even when the imputed participants did not actually have knives themselves. CASE/S . A common incidence of the application of the rule is to impute criminal liability for assaulting a person with a knife. DOCTRINES IN TREASON DOCTRINE 23.imputes criminal liability on the participants to a criminal enterprise for all that results from that enterprise. that one of their number had a knife and might use it. or were reckless as to knowing.