You are on page 1of 2

Distinctions

Mala in Se vs. Mala Prohibita


In mala in se, an act is by nature wrong, evil or bad, and so generally condemned.
The moral trait of the offender is involved; thus good faith or lack of criminal intent
on the part of the offender is a defense, unless the crime is the result of criminal
negligence. Correspondingly, modifying circumstances are considered in punishing
the offender
In mala prohibita, an act is not by nature wrong, evil or bad. Yet, it is punished
because there is a law prohibiting them for public good and thus good faith or lack
of criminal intent in doing the prohibited act is not a defense.

Motive vs. Intent


Motive is the moving power which impels a person to do an act for a definite result;
while intent is the purpose for using a particular means to bring about a desired
result. Motive is not an element of a crime but intent is an element of intentional
crimes. Motive, if attending a crime, always precede the intent.
Recidivism vs. Quasi- Recidivism (1998) Aggravating
In recidivism1. The convictions of the offender are for crimes embraced in the same title of
the RPC; and
2. The circumstance is generic aggravating and therefore can be effect by an
ordinary mitigating circumstance
Whereas in Quasi-recidivism1. The conviction are not for crimes embraced in the same title of the RPC,
provided that it is a felony that was committed by the offender before serving
sentence by final judgment for another crime or while serving sentence for
another crime; and
2. This circumstance is a special aggravating circumstance which cannot be
offset by any mitigating circumstance.
SPECIFIC INTENT VS. GENERAL INTENT
General intent is presumed but specific intent must be proved as it is an element of
felony, for example, intent to kill in frustrated homicide.
DOCTRINE OF SELF HELP VS. SELF-DEFENSE (WHEN CAN WE INVOKE) ?
The lawful exercise of a right exists if the owner or possessor of a thing employs
reasonable force to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical
invasion of his property. Said article of the Civil Code which lays down what is known
in juridical science as the doctrine of self-help can be applied in relation to Article
11, para 5 and under these provisions, the law justifies the act of the owner as
lawful possessor of a thing in using such force as is reasonably necessary for the
protection of his proprietary or possessory right.
When to exercise self-help: at the very moment that he is being deprived of his
property.
Self-defense: when there is unlawful aggression

Can there be conspiracy in silence and inaction?

TREACHERY (CHARACTERISTICS/ELEMENTS)
2 ELEMENTS:
1.)The employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no
opportunity to defend himself or retaliate;
2.)The means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted.
Rivera vs. People
480 SCRA 188
GR No. 166326, Jan 25, 2006
Elements of Intent to Kill:
1.)The means used by the malefactors;
2.)The nature, location and number of wounds sustained by the victim;
3.)The conduct of the malefactors before, at the time, or immediately
after the killing of the victim; and
4.)The circumstances under which the crime was committed and the
motive of the accused.

KINDS OF INSANE PERSONS UNDER TEST


PEOPLE VS. MADARANG GR NO132319, May 12, 2000

Question: If the accused was convicted of a crime punishable by more than


6 years, is convicted by the RTC and an appeal in the CA, the CA only
convicted him of a crime punishable by less than 6 years, is he qualified
for probation?
Answer:
No, Juan can no longer avail of the probation because he appealed from the
judgment of conviction of the trial court, and therefore, cannot apply for probation
anymore. Section 4 of the Probation Law, as amended, mandates that no
application for probation shall be entertained or granted if the accused has
perfected an appeal from the judgment of conviction.

Can conspiracy be committed by SILENCE & INACTION?


Yes, for conspiracy by silence and inaction to exist, it is essential that there must be
patent and conscious criminal design, not merely inadvertence under circumstances
that would have pricked curiosity and prompted inquiries into the transaction
because of obvious and definite defects in its execution andsubstance