I. Defenses: those which if proven may result to an acquittal of the offender from the crime charged or lead to non-criminal liability. They are the reasons advanced by the accused why he may not be held criminally liable.
They are classified into the following: A. As to form:
1. Positive or Affirmative - They are often called defenses in the nature of ―Admission and Avoidance‖. The accused admits authorship of the act or omission charged and imputed to him but he puts
38 Legal resources @ www.sophialegis.weebly.com
up matters to avoid criminally liability orwhich will result to his acquittal.
a. All the Justifying, Exempting and Absolutory Causes are Affirmative defenses.
b. Since the accused has admitted authorship of the act or omission, it‘s not anymore necessary for the prosecution to prove his participation in the commission of the crime or his identity, hence there may be a reverse order of trial in that it will be the accused who will be the first to present his evidence .
c. It is incumbent upon the accused to prove his defense by‖ clear, positive and convincing evidence‖ and his conviction is not that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt but that he was unable to prove his defense. d. CONSTITUTIONAL DEFENSES
Defenses based on a Violation of the Due Process Clause
A. The Statute is VOID-FOR- VAGUENESS PRINCIPLE
1. Due Process requires that the terms of a penal statute must be sufficiently explicit to inform those who are subject to it what conduct on their part will render them liable to its penalties.
2. The Doctrine that a penal statute is unconstitutional if it does not reasonably a person on notice as to what the person may not do, or what the person is required to do. As a rule a statue maybe said to be vague when it lacks comprehensible standards that ―men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application‖ It is repugnant to the constitution in two aspects: (a) it violates due process for failure to accord persons, especially the parties targeted by it, fair notice of the conduct to avoid and (b) it leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and become an arbitrary flexing of the government muscle.
3. However an act will be declared void and inoperative on the ground of vagueness and uncertainty, only upon
a showing that the defect is such that the courts are unable to determine, within any reasonable degree of certainty, what the legislature intended
Example: An ordinance of the City of Cincinnati that made it illegal for ―three or more persons to assemble on any sidewalk and there conduct themselves in a manner annoying to persons passing by‖.
B. VOID FOR OVERBREADTH (Overbroad) PRINCIPLE
1. A penal statue is unconstitutional if its language is so broad that it unnecessary interferes with the exercise of constitutional rights, even though the purpose is to prohibit activities that the government may constitutionally prohibit.
2. A statute is overbroad where it operates to inhibit the exercise of individual freedoms guaranteed by the constitution, such as the freedom of religion or speech. When it includes within its coverage not only unprotected activity but also activity protected by the constitution.
3. This principle applies more to felonies or offenses which conflict with the freedom of expression and association such as prosecution for libel, inciting to rebellion or sedition, and violation of the Election Code. Example: In Adiong s. COMELEC, 207 SCRA 712, SC declared as void that portion of the Election Code prohibiting the posting of election propaganda in any place-including private vehicles- other than in the designated common poster area. C. VOID FOR LACK OF PUBLICITY 1. The Penal Statue was not publicized in the manner provided for by the Constitution, such as publication in a newspaper of general circulation or in the Official Gazette. Hence there is no constructive note to the public and the principle that ―Ignorantia legis nemenem excusat‖ will not apply.
39 Legal resources @ www.sophialegis.weebly.com
Defenses Based on the EqualProtection Clause
A. DISCRIMINATORY AND SELECTIVE APPLICATION
1. A Penal Law must apply to all persons who are in the same or similar situation.
2. A statute nondiscriminatory on its face maybe grossly discriminatory in its operation. Though the law itself be fair on its face and impartial in appearance, yet, if it is applied and administered by public authority with an evil eye and unequal; hand, so as to make unjust and illegal discriminations between persons in similar circumstances, material to their rights, there is denial of equal justice and is prohibited.
3. However, the prosecution of one guilty person while others equally guilty are not prosecuted, is not, by itself, a denial of the equal protection of the laws. There must be present an element of ‖clear and intentional or purposeful discrimination:” on the part of the prosecuting officials. 2. Negative - the accused denies authorship
or having performed the act or omission imputed to him. Examples are denial, alibi, mistaken identity.
B. As to Effect:
1. Total or Perfect - those the effect of which will totally exonerate the accused. Example: a complete justifying circumstance, amnesty.
2. Partial - those which are intended to lessen the liability of the accused. They include proof the offense is a lesser offenses, or that it is of a lower stage of execution, that the accused has a lower participation and is not the principal.
C. As to source:
1. Legal - those provided for by statutes or by the constitution. For example: prescription of crimes, marriage of the offender and offended, pardon, double jeopardy, amnesty.
2. Factual - those based on the circumstances of the commission of the crime relating to the time, place, manner of commission; identification of the accused; reasons for
the commission. For example: alibi, sel- defense; insanity, mistaken identity. COMPLETE DEFENSES IN CRIMINAL CASES 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.
3. The act of the accused falls under any of the exempting circumstances.
4. The case is covered by any of the absolutory causes.
5. Guilt of the accused not established beyond reasonable doubt.
6. Prescription of Crimes.
Circumstances Affecting Criminal Liability as Specifically Provided under the RPC:
Art. 11. Justifying circumstances
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES - are those where the act of a person is said to be in accordance with law, so that such person is deemed not to have transgressed the law and is free from both criminal and civil liability. There is no civil liability, except in par. 4 of Art. 11, where the civil liability is borne by the persons benefited by the act.
a. There is no mens rea or criminal intent.
b. The circumstances pertain to the act and not to the actor. Hence all who participated in the act will be benefited. Thus if the principal is acquitted there will be no accomplices and accessories. c. These apply only to intentional felonies, not to acts
by omissions or to culpable felonies or to violations of special laws.
d. They are limited to the 6 enumerated in Article 11. The Use of Force Defenses - These are the justifying circumstances where the accused is allowed to use force i.e to inflict injury upon the victim or to destroy property. The force may either be (i) Deadly Force or that which can result to serious physical injuries or even to the death of the victim and (ii) Non- Deadly but reasonable force.
The Use- of-Force-Defenses include (i) self-Defense (ii) Defense of Relative and (iii) Defense of Stranger. Paragraph 1. Self defense
Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstances concur: First. Unlawful aggression;
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;
40 Legal resources @ www.sophialegis.weebly.com
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of theperson defending himself. Concept of Self Defense
Self-defense includes not only the defense of the person or body of the one assaulted but also that of his rights, the enjoyment of which is protected by law. Thus, it includes:
1. The right to honor. Hence, a slap on the face is considered as unlawful aggression directed against the honor of the actor (People vs. Sabio, 19 SCRA 901).
2. The defense of property rights, only if there is also an actual and imminent danger on the person of the one defending (People vs Narvaez, 121 SCRA 389).
Elements:
1. Unlawful aggression;
2. reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel it; and
3. lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.
Note: The first two are common to the three Use- of-Force-Defenses.