last part art. 11

7/27/2019 Last Part Art. 11

1/4

ENTRAPMENT IS NOT AN ABSOLUTORY CAUSE

Example:

Facts:

Accused wrote to his correspondent in HK to send him a shipment of

opium which was already ready for shipment to Cebu.

Collector of Customs of Cebu received a tip about the intended

shipment of opium

Collector will remove all difficulties for P2,000.00

Juan Samson, a secret serviceman, pretended to smooth the way for

the introduction fo the prohibited drug.

Agents of the law seized the opium upon landing. Accused prosecuted.

HELD

True, Samson smoothed the way for the introduction of the prohibited

drugs but that was after the accused had already planned its

importation and ordered for said drug.

Samson neither induced nor instigated the accused to import the

opium in question, but pretended to have an understanding with the

Collector of Customs.

- innocent person is induced to commit a crime merely to prosecute him,but it is simply a trap set to catch a criminal. (People vs. Lua Chuaand Uy Se Tieng)

- If the accused had not yet ordered for opium in Hong Kong when hetalked with the Collector of Customs but that on the strength of theassurance of the Collector of Customs, he later ordered for opium inHongkong, it would be instigation, not entrapment, because theaccused was instigated to import a prohibited Drug, a crime punishedby Art. 192.

ENTRAPMENT AND INSTIGATION DISTIGUISHED

Entrapment Instigation

No bar to the prosecution and Accused must be acquitted


2/4

conviction of the lawbreaker

Entrapper resorts to ways andmeans to execute the criminalplan of capturing thelawbreaker

Originates from the criminalmind

Do not exempt the criminal

from liability

Person planned or about to

commit a crime and ways andmeans are resorted to by apublic officer to trap and catchthe criminal

Not a defense

Instigator inducing the would-

be defendant into committingthe offense, and himselfbecomes a co-principal

Law enforcer conceives the

commission of the crime andsuggests to the accused whoadopts the idea and carries intoexecution

Exempt criminal from liability

Public officer or a private

detective induces an innocentperson to commit a crime andwould arrest him upon or afterthe commission of the crime bythe latter.

Absolutory cause

INSTIGATION MUST BE MADE BY A PUBLIC OFFICER OR PRIVATE

DETECTIVE

- A criminal act is not punishable if the accused was induced by public

detective ( State vs. Hayes)

- Courts shall condemn this practice by directing an acquittal whenever

it appears that the public authorities or private detectives have takenactive steps to lead the accused into the commission of the act.

(Saunders vs. People)

- Instigation is a private individual, not performing public function, both

are criminally liable.

THERE IS NEITHER INSTIGATION NOR ENTRAPMENT WHEN THE

VIOLATION OF THE LAW IS SIMPLY DISCOVERED

- People vs. Tan Tiong

ASSURANCE OF IMMUNITY BY A PUBIC OFFICER DOES NOT EXEMPT A

PERSON FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY.

- People vs. Alabas

COMPLETE DEFENSES IN CRIMINAL CASES


3/4

1. Any of the essential elements of the crime charged is not proved by

the prosecution and the elements proved do not constitute any crime.

2. The act of the accused falls under any of the justifying circumstances.

(Art. 11)

3. The case of the accused falls under any of the exempting

circumstances. (Art.12)

4. The case is covered by any of the absolutory causes:a. Spontaneous desistance during attempted stage (Art. 6),

and no crime under another provision of the Code or otherpenal law is committed.

b. Light felony is only attempted or frustrated, and is notagainst person or property ( Art. 7)

c. The accessory is a relative of the principal (Art. 20)

d. Legal grounds for arbitrary detention (Art. 124)e. Legal grounds for trespass. (Art. 280)f. The crime of theft, swindling or malicious mischief is

committed against a relative. (Art. 332)g. When only slight or less serious physical injuries are inflicted

by the person who surprised his spouse or daughter in theact of sexual intercourse with another person. (Art. 247)

h. Marriage of the offender with the offended party when thecrime committed is rape, abduction, seduction, or acts oflasciviousness. (Art. 344)

i. Instigation.

5. Guilt of the accused not established beyond reasonable doubt.6. Prescription of crimes. (Art. 89)7. Pardon by the offended party before the institution of criminal actionin crime against chastity. (Art. 344)

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES

Definition: are those which, if present in the commission of the crime, do notentirely free the actor from criminal liability, but serve only to reduce thepenalty.

Basis: Diminution of either freedom of action, intelligence or intent, or on thelesser perversity of the offender.

CLASSES OF MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES

1. Ordinary Mitigating


4/4

Enumerated in subsections 1 to 10 of Art. 13 (if Art. 69, is notapplicable)

2. Privileged Mitigatinga. Art. 68 Penalty to be imposed upon a person under

eighteen years of age.

b. Art. 69 Penalty to be imposed when the crime committedis not wholly excusable

c. Art. 64 Rules for the application of penalties whichcontains three periods

PRIVILEDGED MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES APPLICABLE ONLY TOPARTICULAR CRIMES

1. Voluntary release of the person illegally detained w/in 3 days withoutthe offender attaining his purpose and before the institution of criminalaction. (penalty: one degree lower)

2. Abandonment without justification of the spouse who committedadultery. (penalty: one degree lower)

DISTINCTIONS

ORDINARY MITIGATING PRIVILEDGES MITIGATING

Susceptible of being offset byany aggravating circumstance

Not offset by an aggravating

circumstance

Applying penalty in itsminimum period, in case ofdivisible penalty.

Cannot be offset byaggravating circumstance

Imposing the penalty lower by

one or two degrees than thatprovided by law for the crimes

- People vs. Honradez

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES ONLY REDUCE THE PENALTY, BUT DO

NOT CHANGE THE NATURE OF THE CRIME

- People vs. Talam

last part art. 11

Documents