Digested Cases in Criminal Law

Only available on StudyMode
  • Download(s): 250
  • Published: December 30, 2012
Read full document
Text Preview
2000 CASE DIGESTS

C R I M I N A L L A W

SUMMARY OF DOCTRINES

JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES

Self-Defense

The invocation of self-defense is an admission of the killing and its authorship. By this admission, the burden of proof shifts to the accused who must establish all elements of the justifying circumstance. The nature and number of wounds inflicted disprove the plea of self-defense because they demonstrate determined effort to kill and not just defend himself. (People v. Magayac G.R. No. 126043, April 19, 2000)

It is a settled rule that when unlawful aggression ceases, the defender has no longer any right to kill or wound the former aggressor, otherwise, retaliation and not self-defense is committed. (People v. Cotas G.R. No. 132043 May 31, 2000)

Unlawful aggression must refer to an attack or a threat to attack, positively showing the intent of the aggressor to cause injury, not merely a threatening attitude. (People v. Sabdani G.R. No. 134262, June 28, 2000)

Defense of Property

This justifying circumstance cannot be appreciated when there was no attack made on the person claiming the benefit of this circumstance and when he merely suspected that his property was stolen. In this case, there was unlawful killing as the shooting of the alleged thieves were not reasonably necessary to defend his property. (People v. Ignacio G.R. No. 134568 February 10, 2000)

EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES

Insanity

Insanity, under Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code, connotes that the accused must have been deprived completely of reason and freedom of the will at the time of the commission of the crime, or that he must have acted without the least discernment. Mere abnormality of the accused's mental faculties does not exclude imputability. (People v. Aquino G.R. No. 128887 January 20, 2000)

The totality of the acts will show whether the accused was fully conscious of what he was doing. (People v. Pambid G.R. No. 124453, March 15, 2000)

An accused invoking the insanity defense pleads not guilty by reason thereof. He admits committing the crime but claims that he is not guilty because he was insane at the time of its commission. Hence, the accused is tried on the issue of sanity alone and if found to be sane, a judgment of conviction is rendered without any trial on the issue of guilt as he had already admitted committing the crime. (People v. Madarang G.R. No. 132319 May 12, 2000)

To ascertain a person’s mental condition at the time of the act, it is permissible to receive evidence of the condition of his mind within a reasonable period before and after

the incident. Direct testimony is not required. Neither are specific acts of derangement essential to establish insanity as a defense. Circumstantial evidence, if clear and convincing suffices. (People v Estrada G.R. No. 130487 June 19, 2000)

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES

Passion/Obfuscation; Intoxication

As to the claim of the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation, the same is bereft of merit because his acts did not result from an impulse arising from lawful sentiments but from a spirit of lawlessness.

For intoxication to be mitigating, the following conditions must be present: (1) the same is not habitual or is not subsequent to the plan of the commission of a felony; otherwise, it is aggravating if it is habitual and intentional; and (2) the consumption of alcoholic drinks was in such quantity as to blur the accused's reason and deprive him of a certain degree of control. (People v Aquino G.R. No. G.R. No. 128887 January 20, 2000)

Incomplete Mitigating Circumstance; Performance of Duty

A peace officer is never justified in using unnecessary force or violence in effecting arrest when the arrest can be effected otherwise. (Roque Galang v CA G.R. No. 128536 January 31, 2000)

Physical Disability; Lack of Intent to Commit so Grave a Wrong; Provocation

The...
tracking img