Law School BuddyWhen accused-appellant Pugay poured gasoline on the victim’s body and thereafter his co- accused Samson set the victim on fire, there is nothing in the records showing that there was previous conspiracy or unity of criminal purpose and intention between the two accused-appellants immediately before the commission of the crime.
To sustain a conviction for selling prohibited drugs, the sale must be clearly and unmistakably established. To sell means to give, whether for money or any other material consideration. It must, therefore, be established beyond reasonable doubt that appellant actually sold and delivered two tea bags of marijuana dried leaves to Sgt. Lopez, who acted […]
When the Resulting Harm is Greater than Means Employed by the Offender “Praeter intentionem” is defined as having an injurious result that is greater than that intended. The Revised Penal Code describes it as no intention to commit so grave a wrong. In People vs. Ural, praeter intentionem is a mitigating circumstance “that the offender had no […]
Can A Wrongful Act Done Differently From That Which is Intended Incur Criminal Liability? In “aberratio ictus” or mistake in the blow, a person directed the blow at an intended victim, but because of poor aim, that blow landed on somebody else. The intended victim as well as the actual victim are both at the […]
Know Your Rights: An accused cannot be convicted of an offense unless it is clearly charged in the complaint or information In criminal cases, where the life and liberty of the accused is at stake, due process requires that the accused be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. An accused […]
When does a Mistake in Identity Become a Criminal Liability? “Error in personae” or mistake in identity is injuring one person who is mistaken for another. The intended victim is not at the scene of the crime. It is the actual victim upon whom the blow was directed, but he is not really the intended […]
Is There Criminal Liability for Ignorance or Mistake of Fact? The legal maxim, “Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea,” aptly justifies that the act itself does not make man guilty unless his intention were so. In the absence of malice (criminal intent), negligence, and imprudence, does not impose any criminal liability on the […]
TEACHER – STUDENT RELATIONSHIP An exceptional landmark case wherein the Supreme Court ruled in favor of love. A 30-year-old teacher married her 16-year-old student when marriage between minors was still legal. As a result, the teacher was terminated from employment “for abusive and unethical conduct unbecoming of a dignified school teacher.” While it is true […]
This case is whether or not abandonment by a spouse, by itself, warrants a finding of psychological incapacity within the contemplation of the Family Code, that leads to nullity of marriage. The court ruled in the negative. “It must be shown that such abandonment is a manifestation of a disordered personality which makes the spouse […]
This case was originally commenced by a distraught wife against her uncaring husband, which decreed the annulment of the marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity. Refusal of husband to have sex was interpreted to be psychological incapacity. A man who can but won’t is psychologically incapacitated. “Love is useless unless it is shared with […]