0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)
17 просмотров21 страница
This document provides an overview of justifying and exempting circumstances under criminal law. It discusses that in a justifying circumstance, the act committed is lawful so there is no criminal liability, while in an exempting circumstance a crime is committed but there is an absence of voluntariness, so the offender is not criminally liable. It notes that a justifying circumstance inheres in the lawful act, while an exempting circumstance is personal to the offender. The document then examines some specific justifying circumstances in more detail, including self-defense which is grounded in protecting a person from an unjust aggression when the state is unable to intervene.
This document provides an overview of justifying and exempting circumstances under criminal law. It discusses that in a justifying circumstance, the act committed is lawful so there is no criminal liability, while in an exempting circumstance a crime is committed but there is an absence of voluntariness, so the offender is not criminally liable. It notes that a justifying circumstance inheres in the lawful act, while an exempting circumstance is personal to the offender. The document then examines some specific justifying circumstances in more detail, including self-defense which is grounded in protecting a person from an unjust aggression when the state is unable to intervene.
This document provides an overview of justifying and exempting circumstances under criminal law. It discusses that in a justifying circumstance, the act committed is lawful so there is no criminal liability, while in an exempting circumstance a crime is committed but there is an absence of voluntariness, so the offender is not criminally liable. It notes that a justifying circumstance inheres in the lawful act, while an exempting circumstance is personal to the offender. The document then examines some specific justifying circumstances in more detail, including self-defense which is grounded in protecting a person from an unjust aggression when the state is unable to intervene.
Conceptually, in a justifying and exempting circumstance the accused does
·not incur any·criminalliability. The rationale of a justifying circumstance is that the act committed is in accordance with law, so that it is considered that the actor has not infringed the law, and therefore he does not incur any criminal nor civil liability. The source of the civil liability which is the delict is absent. While it is true that in the justifying circumstance of state of necessity 1 Article 101, par. 2 of t!e Revised Penal Code, provides for civil liability, such, however, does not devolve upon the actor but "upon the persons for whose benefit the hann has been prevented x x x in proportion to the benefit which they may have received." On the other hand, in an exempting circumstance, a crime is committed, but there is a complete absence of any of the elements or. conditions of voluntariness of the act. Since the crime is not committed voluntarily, the offender is not criminal- ly liable although he is civilly liable because the crime, which is the source of the obligation, is present. Whereas, a justifying circumstance inheres in the act committed, which is lawful, an exempting circumstance is personal to the offender. In essence, in a justifying circumstance there is a crime but there is no criminal.
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMST~CES
The justifying circumstances are self-defense, defense of relatives, defense of
stranger, state of necessity, fulflllment of duty or exercise of a right and obedience to superior order.2
1. Self-Defense- Ba.~.s and Rationale
In the case of People v. Boholst.:.Caballero 3 the basis of self-defense was
culled by the Supreme Court from continental renowned criminologists4 as fol- lows: "To the Classicist in penal law, lawful defense is grounded on the impossibil- ity on the part of the State to avoid a present unjust aggression and protect a