Docsity
Log inSign up
Docsity
Prepare for your exams
Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity

Earn points to download
Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan

Guidelines and tips
Guidelines and tips
Sell on Docsity
Sell on Docsity
Docsity AI
Docsity AI
Log inSign up

Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity

Find documents

Prepare for your exams with the study notes shared by other students like you on Docsity

Search for your university

Find the specific documents for your university's exams

Docsity AINEW

Summarize your documents, ask them questions, convert them into quizzes and concept maps

Explore questions

Clear up your doubts by reading the answers to questions asked by your fellow students

Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan

Share documents
download point icon20 Points

For each uploaded document

Answer questions
download point icon5 Points

For each given answer (max 1 per day)

All the ways to get free points
Get points immediately

Choose a premium plan with all the points you need

Study Opportunities

Choose your next study program

Get in touch with the best universities in the world. Search through thousands of universities and official partners

Community

Ask the community

Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts

Free resources

Our save-the-student-ebooks!

Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors

Philippine Penal Code: Felonies, Intent, and Criminal Liability, Cheat Sheet of Forensics

Arellano University (AU)Forensics

Performance Task 4 Forensic 4

Typology: Cheat Sheet

2021/2022

Uploaded on 11/12/2022

bella-ciao-14
bella-ciao-14 🇵🇭

17 documents

1 / 6

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
AN ACT REVISING THE PENAL CODE AND OTHER PENAL LAWS
Chapter One
Felonies
Article 3. Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies.
Not only can felonies be committed through the use of dishonesty (dolo), but also
through the use of fault (culpa). When a wrongdoing is the consequence of imprudence,
negligence, a lack of forethought, or a lack of expertise, this is considered to be fault, as
opposed to deceit, which occurs when the act is carried out with the intention of doing
wrong.
Before a felony can be committed, the following conditions must be met: (1) there
must be an act or omission; (2) the act or omission must be criminal under the Revised
Penal Code; and (3) the conduct must be carried out or the omission must be incurred
by the use of dolo or culpa. Dolo is the Japanese word for "deceit," which refers to the
method by which a felony is done. A deceitful act is one that is carried out with the
intention of being dishonest.
Criminal intent is not necessary in these cases:
a. When the crime is the product of culpa or negligence, reckless
imprudence, lack of foresight or lack of skill.
b. When the crime is a prohibited act under a special law or what is called
malum prohibitum.
In criminal law, intent is categorized into two:
a. General criminal intent; and
b. Specific criminal intent.
Simply engaging in illegal behavior raises reasonable suspicion that the offender
intends to commit a crime. There is no need to provide proof for this. It is up to the
person who committed the wrongdoing to demonstrate that they did not act with the
pf3
pf4
pf5

Partial preview of the text

Download Philippine Penal Code: Felonies, Intent, and Criminal Liability and more Cheat Sheet Forensics in PDF only on Docsity!

AN ACT REVISING THE PENAL CODE AND OTHER PENAL LAWS

Chapter One Felonies Article 3. Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies. Not only can felonies be committed through the use of dishonesty (dolo), but also through the use of fault (culpa). When a wrongdoing is the consequence of imprudence, negligence, a lack of forethought, or a lack of expertise, this is considered to be fault, as opposed to deceit, which occurs when the act is carried out with the intention of doing wrong. Before a felony can be committed, the following conditions must be met: (1) there must be an act or omission; (2) the act or omission must be criminal under the Revised Penal Code; and (3) the conduct must be carried out or the omission must be incurred by the use of dolo or culpa. Dolo is the Japanese word for "deceit," which refers to the method by which a felony is done. A deceitful act is one that is carried out with the intention of being dishonest. Criminal intent is not necessary in these cases: a. When the crime is the product of culpa or negligence, reckless imprudence, lack of foresight or lack of skill. b. When the crime is a prohibited act under a special law or what is called malum prohibitum. In criminal law, intent is categorized into two: a. General criminal intent; and b. Specific criminal intent. Simply engaging in illegal behavior raises reasonable suspicion that the offender intends to commit a crime. There is no need to provide proof for this. It is up to the person who committed the wrongdoing to demonstrate that they did not act with the

intention to commit the crime. Because specific criminal intent is an ingredient or element of a crime, such as the intent to kill in the crimes of attempted or frustrated homicide/parricide/murder, a presumption of specific criminal intent cannot be made. The onus of proof rests squarely on the shoulders of the prosecution. Distinction between intent and discernment. An individual's mental goal or objective can be referred to as their intent. Intent is synonymous with determination. It is the intention to solve a problem or the firm decision that drives a person's behavior. On the other hand, discernment refers to the capacity of the mind to differentiate between right and wrong. It pertains to the intellect as an aspect of dolo, which is distinct from intent, and it has to do with the moral value that a person ascribes to the act that he or she commits. Clarification of the difference between intent and motive. Intention is not a state of mind or a rationale for committing a crime; rather, it is proved by the use of a particular means to bring about a desired result. Intent can be shown by the following: On the other hand, the word "motive" suggests activity. It is the driving force that compels one to carry out a certain action. When there is a motive for committing a crime, the reason will always come before the desire to commit the crime. However, a crime can be done for no apparent reason at all. If the offense is one that requires intent, then it cannot be carried out without that intent. The offender's choice of weapon is decisive in determining their level of intent. The explicit purpose to commit the crime is relevant if the completed act is to be distinguished from the stages of the crime known as attempted and frustrated. The inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person executing or omitting to undertake an act is the essence of the concept of criminal negligence. It would be a case of reckless imprudence to continue to put yourself in that scenario when it is abundantly evident that you are putting yourself in harm's way. You only have a case of simple neglect on your hands if the threat that might be caused by such irresponsibility is not obvious, not readily apparent, or immediately imminent.

Article 4: Criminal liability shall be incurred:

  1. Article 4 stipulates that every individual who commits a felony will be held accountable for their actions, even if the illegal conduct they actually carried out was not the one they had intended. It is assumed in the first sentence of paragraph 1 of Article 4 that the conduct that was committed was the direct cause of the resultant offense. It must be the immediate, unavoidable, and logical result of the criminal act. Different effects are produced by the following causes:  Mistake in identity of the victim - Injuring one person who is mistaken for another (this is a complex crime under Art. 48). The intended victim was not present at the time of the crime, which is known as an error in personae. The blow was delivered to the actual victim, yet he was not the intended victim at all. The blow was directed at the actual victim. Error in personae can have an effect on the criminal responsibility of the offender since it can lessen the severity of the crime that was committed if it was not the same crime that was meant to be committed. Error in personae does not have any bearing on the criminal responsibility of the offender if the offense that was committed is identical to the crime that was planned. An offender's criminal culpability is not affected by an error in persona if the crime done was the same as the crime planned, but it was committed against a different victim. This is the case in a case of mistaken identity. On the other hand, if the crime that was actually committed was not the offense that was planned, then Article 49 will apply, and the punishment for the lower crime will be enforced. If Article 49 is applicable, a mistake in identity can be considered a mitigating circumstance. Error in identity is not considered a mitigating circumstance in situations when the intended offense is more serious than the one that was actually committed.

Mistake in blow - it refers to the act of hitting somebody other than the intended target due to a lack of competence or fortunate circumstances (this is a complicated offense under Art. 48). For example, B and C were strolling together at the time of the incident. Although A intended to shoot B, he ended up hurting C instead. The term "aberratio ictus" refers to a situation in which a person aimed a blow at a specific victim, but due to poor aim, the blow fell on another person instead. The term "aberratio ictus" refers to a situation in which both the intended victim and the actual victim are present at the site of the crime. The presence of aberratio ictus almost always precedes the commission of a serious crime. Given this fact, the punishment for the more severe offense is served throughout the course of the longest possible sentence.  The injurious result is greater than intended – causing injury graver than intended or expected (this is a mitigating circumstance due to the lack of intent to commit such a grave wrong under Art. 13). The doctrine of praeter intentionem is considered mitigating and is addressed explicitly in paragraph 3 of Article 13. However, for this scenario to be considered a case of praeter intentionem, there needs to be a significant gap between the methods that were used and the criminal that was committed as a result. Since the perpetrator acted with the intent to commit a crime in each of these scenarios, he or she may still be held accountable under criminal law. The doctrine of proximate causation states that there must exist an adequate cause that, given the natural order of things and the specific circumstances surrounding the case, will inevitably result in the occurrence of the event in question. Proximate Cause is negated by active force, a different act, or a fact that is utterly foreign from the felonious act of the accused, which acts as a sufficient intervening cause, are all examples of things that can disprove the existence of a proximate cause and the victim's willful act caused the harm or damage that was sustained as a result.