Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 3

NATURE OF FELONIES (Article 3) Definition of Felonies: THREE KINDS OF CRIMES: Two modes of committing felonies (Art 3): 1.

ELEMENTS OF FELONIES --PEOPLE v. SILVESTRE AND ATIENZA PEOPLE vs. DELA CRUZ (GR No. 182348, November 20, 2008)

1. REQUISITES OF CRIMES COMMITTED by DOLO OR MALICE: 2. People v. Sia Teb Ban 3. People v. Taneo MISTAKE OF THE FACT --1. US v. Ah Chong Mistake of Fact 2. Erro in Personae People v. Oanis, 3. US vs. ENRIQUEZ (32 Phil., 202) DISTINGUISH GENERAL FORMS SPECIFIC INTENT --FELONIES COMMITTED BY CULPA --1. DEFINITIONS -- Imprudence Negligence 2. Art. 365 Imprudence or Negligence 3. REQUISITES OF CULPA OR FAULT --4. People v. Guillen, CRIMES PUNISHED BY SPECIAL LAW 1. Elements of felonies: People v. Silvestre and Atienza, US v. Divino, People v. Ramirez, 2. Dolo is not required to punish crimes by special penal laws. People v. Go Chico, People v. Bayona, US v. Siy Cong Bieng, PEOPLE vs. LANDICHO (CA) 3. when the act described by special law are inherently immoral Sandiganbayan, November 19, 2001). MOTIVE 1. Motive Distinguished from Intent 2. When IS motive is relevant or irrelevant People v. Taneo,

- Estrada

vs.

FELONIES 1. ART. 3 RPC (dolo & culpa) note the correct translation of dolo 2. Elements of Felonies: 3. Difference between dolo and culpa Dolo is through malice (intent/mens rea) while culpa is by negligence or impurdence 4. Distinguish felonies from crimes in general: - Felonies are acts or omissions penalized by the RPC while crime is the broader concept covering acts omissions penalized by the RPC and those under special penal laws FELONIES COMMITTED BY MEANS OF DOLO 1. concept of mens rea 2. REQUISITES: PP vs. ANACITO OPURAN (GR 147674-75, March 17, 2004) - PEOPLE vs. SIA TEB BAN, 54 Phil. 52, 53) 3. ABSENCE OF INTENT/MENS REA: - UNITED STATES vs. CATOLICO, 18 Phil. 504 - PEOPLE vs. FRANCIS ABARCA (G.R. No. 74433. September 14, 1987) - PEOPLE vs. BERONILLA, 96 Phil 566 4. Distinction between general intent and specific intent: FELONIES COMMITTED BY MEANS OF CULPA 1. U.S. vs. DIVINO, 12 Phil 175 2. PEOPLE vs. GUILLEN, 85 Phil 307 3. US vs. CATANGAY, 28 Phil 490

MISTAKE OF FACT 1. US vs. AH CHONG, 15 Phil. 503 2. PEOPLE vs. OANIS, 74 Phil 257 3. REQUISITES: 4. Mistake of fact is not tenable in the following: - Error in personae - When the accused is criminally negligent 5. Differentiate Mistake of Fact from Mistake of Identity (error in personae) CRIMES MALA PROHIBITA 1. Differentiate Crimes Mala In Se from Crimes Mala Prohibita 2. U.S. vs. SIY CONG BIENG, ET. AL. (30 Phil 577) 3. U.S. vs. GO CHICO, 14 Phil. 129 4. In PEOPLE vs. TIO WON CHUA (GR 149878, Juloy 1, 2003) 5. JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA vs. SANDIGANBAYAN & PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES (G.R. 148560,November 19, 2001) 6.

MOTIVE 1. Concept 2. When Important

3. Distinguished from criminal intent - Intent is an element of a felony while motive is not - Motive is the impelling reason for the crime while intent is the purpose to use particular means - Intent is always essential in intentional felonies while motive is essential only when the identity of the perpetrator is in doubt 4. MOTIVE vs. CRIMINAL INTENT - PEOPLE vs. MARLON DELIM, ET. AL., ([G.R. No. 142773. January 28, 2003]