Catastro del sistema de agua potable El Manzano

Absolutory causes

Absolutory causes are those where the act committed is a crime but for reasons of public policy and sentiment there is no penalty imposed.

Examples of absolutory causes

1. Spontaneous desistance in attempted felonies (Art. 6, par. 3).

2. Light felonies in the attempted or frustrated stage, except in crimes against persons or property (Art.

7).

3. Accessories in light felonies (Art. 16).

4. Accessory is a relative of the principal (Art. 20).

5. Discovering secrets of ward through seizure of correspondence by their guardian (Art. 290).

6. When only slight or less serious physical injuries are inflicted by the person who surprised his/her spouse or daughter in the act of sexual intercourse with another person (Art. 247).

NOTE: If death or serious physical injuries were inflicted by the accused under the situation subject of Art. 247, no absolutory cause can be involved but in effect a mitigating circumstance is present, since the accused is criminally liable but he is punished with the reduced penalty of destierro.

7. Crime of theft, swindling or malicious mischief committed against as spouse, ascendant, or descendant or if the offender is a brother or sister or brother-in-law or sister-in-law of the offended party and they are living together (Art. 332).

8. Instigation

9. Trespass to dwelling when the purpose of entering another’s dwelling against the latter’s will is to prevent some serious harm to himself, the occupants of the dwelling or a third person, or for the purposes of rendering some services to humanity or justice, or when entering cafes, taverns, inns and other public houses, while the same are open (Art. 280 par. 2).

Q: Are the grounds for total extinguishment of criminal liability (Art. 89) and express pardon or marriage of the accused and the victim in crimes against chastity (Art. 344) absolutory causes?

A: No. An absolutory cause prevents criminal liability from attaching or arising from the acts of the accused.

Art. 89 speaking of extinguishment of criminal liability presuppose that the accused was deemed criminally liable; otherwise there would be no liability to extinguish. The same is true with respect to marriage of the parties in crimes against chastity.

63

FA C U L T Y O F C^{I V I L} L^{A W} Instigation

Instigation happens when a public officer induces an innocent person to commit a crime and would arrest him upon or after the commission.

NOTE: A private person is liable with the person instigated.

Instigation absolve the offender from criminal liability

In instigation, the offender simply acts as a tool of the law enforcers and, therefore, he is acting without criminal intent because without the instigation, he would not have done the criminal act which he did upon instigation of the law enforcers.

NOTE: This is based on the rule that a person cannot be a criminal if his mind is not criminal.

Persons who may commit instigation

Only public officers or private detectives may commit instigation. If the one who made the instigation is a private individual, not performing a public function, both he and the one induced are criminally liable, the former as principal by inducement and the latter as principal by direct participation.

Entrapment is not an absolutory cause

Entrapment is not an absolutory cause. Entrapment does not exempt the offender, nor mitigate his criminal liability.

Effect when the person entrapped knew that the person trying to entrap him is a law enforcer

In entrapment, the person entrapped should not know that the person trying to entrap him is a law enforcer.

The idea is incompatible with each other because in entrapment, the person entrapped is actually committing a crime. The officer who entrapped him only lays down ways and means to have evidence of the commission of the crime, but even without those ways and means, the person entrapped is actually engaged in a violation of law.

Determination of whether the act is an entrapment or instigation

Courts have adopted the objective testIn the case of People v. Doria, the SC held that the conduct of the apprehending officers and the predisposition of the accused to commit the crime must be examined:

In buy-bust operations demands that the details of the purported transaction must be clearly and adequately

shown. This must start from the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to purchase, the promise or payment of the consideration until the consummation of the sale by the delivery of the illegal drug subject of the sale.

The manner by which the initial contact was made, whether or not through an informant, the offer to purchase the drug, the payment of the "buy-bust"

money, and the delivery of the illegal drug, whether to the informant alone or the police officer, must be the subject of strict scrutiny by courts to insure that law-abiding citizens are not unlawfully induced to commit an offense.

Criminals must be caught but not at all cost. At the same time, however, examining the conduct of the police should not disable courts into ignoring the accused's predisposition to commit the crime. If there is overwhelming evidence of habitual delinquency, recidivism or plain criminal proclivity, then this must also be considered. Courts should look at all factors to determine the predisposition of an accused to commit an offense in so far as they are relevant to determine the validity of the defense of inducement.

Frame-up and extortion as common defense, and the presumption of the regular performance of public officers

Such defense is viewed by the Court with disfavor, because it can be easily concocted. To substantiate such defense, including instigation, the evidence must be clear and convincing because of the presumption that public officers acted in the regular performance of their official duties (People v. De la Pena, G.R. 92534, July 9, 1991).

Entrapment v. Instigation (2003 Bar Question) BASIS ENTRAPMENT INSTIGATION

As to

The idea and design to bring about the commission of the induce, lure, or incite a person who is not minded to commit a crime and would not otherwise commit it,

into committing the crime

As to criminal

liability

The circumstance is no bar to prosecution and conviction of the lawbreaker

This circumstance absolves the accused from criminal liability (People v. Dante Marcos, 1990)

65

FA C U L T Y O F C^{I V I L} L^{A W}