1

Codal and Notes in CRIMINAL LAW BOOK I by RENE CALLANTA

*** CULLED FROM THE BOOKS OF REYES, GREGORIO, PALATTAO &

SANDOVAL WITH EXCERPTS FROM ORTEGA NOTES

Criminal Law – A branch of municipal law which defines crimes, treats of their nature
and provides for their punishment.

Legal Basis of Punishment

The power to punish violators of criminal law comes within the police
power of the state. It is the injury inflicted to the public which a criminal
action seeks to redress, and not the injury to the individual.

The objective of the punishment is two-fold: absolute and relative. The

absolute theory is to inflict punishment as a form of retributive justice. It is
to destroy wrong in its effort to annihilate right, to put an end to the criminal
activity of the offender.

On the other hand, the relative theory purports to prevent the

offender from further offending public right or to the right to repel an
imminent or actual aggression, exemplary or by way of example to others not
to follow the path taken by the offender and ultimately for reformation or to
place him under detention to teach him the obligations of a law-abiding
citizen.

Power to Enact Penal Laws

Only the legislative branch of the government can enact penal laws.
While the President may define and punish an act as a crime, such exercise
of power is not executive but legislative as he derives such power from the
law-making body. It is in essence, an exercise of legislative power by the
Chief Executive.

Limitations on the power of Congress to enact penal laws

1. Must be general in application.

2. Must not partake of the nature of an ex post facto law.

3. Must not partake of the nature of a bill of attainder.

4. Must not impose cruel and unusual punishment or excessive fines.

Characteristics of Criminal Law: (G.T.P.)

1. General – the law is binding to all persons who reside in the Philippines
Generality of criminal law means that the criminal law of the country governs all persons within
the country regardless of their race, belief, sex, or creed. However, it is subject to certain
exceptions brought about by international agreement. Ambassadors, chiefs of states and other
diplomatic officials are immune from the application of penal laws when they are in the country
where they are assigned.

Note that consuls are not diplomatic officers. This includes consul-general, vice-consul or any
consul in a foreign country, who are therefore, not immune to the operation or application of the
penal law of the country where they are assigned. Consuls are subject to the penal laws of the
country where they are assigned.

It has no reference to territory. Whenever you are asked to explain this, it does not include
territory. It refers to persons that may be governed by the penal law.

Exceptions to general application of criminal law:

a) principles of public international law
b) treaties or treaty stipulations

1
 2
Codal and Notes in CRIMINAL LAW BOOK I by RENE CALLANTA

c) laws of preferential application

2. Territorial – the law is binding to all crimes committed within the National Territory
of the Philippines
Exception to Territorial Application: Instances enumerated under Article 2.

Territoriality means that the penal laws of the country have force and effect only within its
territory. It cannot penalize crimes committed outside the same. This is subject to certain
exceptions brought about by international agreements and practice. The territory of the country is
not limited to the land where its sovereignty resides but includes also its maritime and interior
waters as well as its atmosphere.

Terrestrial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised over land.

Fluvial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised over maritime and interior waters.

Aerial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised over the atmosphere.

The Archipelagic Rule

All bodies of water comprising the maritime zone and interior waters abounding different islands
comprising the Philippine Archipelago are part of the Philippine territory regardless of their
breadth, depth, width or dimension.

What Determines Jurisdiction in a Criminal Case?

1. Place where the crime was committed;
2. The nature of the crime committed; and
3. The person committing the crime.

3. Prospective (Prospectivity)– the law does not have any retroactive effect.
Exception to Prospective Application: when new statute is favorable to the accused.

This is also called irretrospectivity.

Acts or omissions will only be subject to a penal law if they are committed after a penal law had
already taken effect. Vice-versa, this act or omission which has been committed before the
effectivity of a penal law could not be penalized by such penal law because penal laws operate
only prospectively.

The exception where a penal law may be given retroactive application is true only with a
repealing law. If it is an original penal law, that exception can never operate. What is
contemplated by the exception is that there is an original law and there is a repealing law
repealing the original law. It is the repealing law that may be given retroactive application to
those who violated the original law, if the repealing penal law is more favorable to the offender
who violated the original law. If there is only one penal law, it can never be given retroactive
effect.

Effect of repeal of penal law to liability of offender

A repeal is absolute or total when the crime punished under the repealed law has been
decriminalized by the repeal. Because of the repeal, the act or omission which used to be a
crime is no longer a crime. An example is Republic Act No. 7363, which decriminalized
subversion.

A repeal is partial or relative when the crime punished under the repealed law continues to be
a crime inspite of the repeal. This means that the repeal merely modified the conditions affecting
the crime under the repealed law. The modification may be prejudicial or beneficial to the
offender. Hence, the following rule:

Consequences if repeal of penal law is total or absolute

(1) If a case is pending in court involving the violation of the repealed law, the same shall be
dismissed, even though the accused may be a habitual delinquent. This is so because
all persons accused of a crime are presumed innocent until they are convicted by final
judgment. Therefore, the accused shall be acquitted.

2
 3
Codal and Notes in CRIMINAL LAW BOOK I by RENE CALLANTA
(2) If a case is already decided and the accused is already serving sentence by final judgment, if the
convict is not a habitual delinquent, then he will be entitled to a release unless there is a
reservation clause in the penal law that it will not apply to those serving sentence at the
time of the repeal. But if there is no reservation, those who are not habitual delinquents
even if they are already serving their sentence will receive the benefit of the repealing
law. They are entitled to release.

This does not mean that if they are not released, they are free to escape. If they escape,
they commit the crime of evasion of sentence, even if there is no more legal basis to hold
them in the penitentiary. This is so because prisoners are accountabilities of the
government; they are not supposed to step out simply because their sentence has
already been, or that the law under which they are sentenced has been declared null and
void.

If they are not discharged from confinement, a petition for habeas corpus should be filed
to test the legality of their continued confinement in jail.

If the convict, on the other hand, is a habitual delinquent, he will continue serving the
sentence in spite of the fact that the law under which he was convicted has already been
absolutely repealed. This is so because penal laws should be given retroactive
application to favor only those who are not habitual delinquents.

Consequences if repeal of penal law is partial or relative

(1) If a case is pending in court involving the violation of the repealed law, and the repealing law
is more favorable to the accused, it shall be the one applied to him. So whether he is a
habitual delinquent or not, if the case is still pending in court, the repealing law will be the
one to apply unless there is a saving clause in the repealing law that it shall not apply to
pending causes of action.

(2) If a case is already decided and the accused is already serving sentence by final judgment, even
if the repealing law is partial or relative, the crime still remains to be a crime. Those who
are not habitual delinquents will benefit on the effect of that repeal, so that if the repeal is
more lenient to them, it will be the repealing law that will henceforth apply to them.

Express or implied repeal. – Express or implied repeal refers to the manner the repeal is done.

Express repeal takes place when a subsequent law contains a provision that such law repeals
an earlier enactment. For example, in Republic Act No. 6425 (The Dangerous Drugs Act of
1972), there is an express provision of repeal of Title V of the Revised Penal Code.

Implied repeals are not favored. It requires a competent court to declare an implied repeal. An
implied repeal will take place when there is a law on a particular subject matter and a subsequent
law is passed also on the same subject matter but is inconsistent with the first law, such that the
two laws cannot stand together, one of the two laws must give way. It is the earlier that will give
way to the later law because the later law expresses the recent legislative sentiment. So you can
have an implied repeal when there are two inconsistent laws. When the earlier law does not
expressly provide that it is repealing an earlier law, what has taken place here is implied repeal.
If the two laws can be reconciled, the court shall always try to avoid an implied repeal.

For example, under Article 9, light felonies are those infractions of the law for the commission of
which a penalty of arresto mayor or a fine not exceeding P200.00 or both is provided. On the
other hand, under Article 26, a fine whether imposed as a single or an alternative penalty, if it
exceeds P6,000.00 but is not less than P 200.00, is considered a correctional penalty. These
two articles appear to be inconsistent. So to harmonize them, the Supreme Court ruled that if the
issue involves the prescription of the crime, that felony will be considered a light felony and,
therefore, prescribes within two months. But if the issue involves prescription of the penalty, the
fine of P200.00 will be considered correctional and it will prescribe within 10 years. Clearly, the
court avoided the collision between the two articles.

Consequences if repeal of penal law is express or implied

(1) If a penal law is impliedly repealed, the subsequent repeal of the repealing law will revive
the original law. So the act or omission which was punished as a crime under the original
law will be revived and the same shall again be crimes although during the implied repeal
they may not be punishable.

3
 4
Codal and Notes in CRIMINAL LAW BOOK I by RENE CALLANTA
(2) If the repeal is express, the repeal of the repealing law will not revive the first law, so the
act or omission will no longer be penalized.

These effects of repeal do not apply to self-repealing laws or those which have automatic
termination. An example is the Rent Control Law which is revived by Congress every two years.

When there is a repeal, the repealing law expresses the legislative intention to do away with such
law, and, therefore, implies a condonation of the punishment. Such legislative intention does not
exist in a self-terminating law because there was no repeal at all.

In Co v. CA, decided on October 28, 1993, it was held that the principle of prospectivity of
statutes also applies to administrative rulings and circulars.

Theories of Criminal Law

1. Classical Theory – Man is essentially a moral creature with an absolute free will to
choose between good and evil and therefore more stress is placed upon the result of
the felonious act than upon the criminal himself.

The purpose of penalty is retribution. The offender is made to suffer for the wrong he has done.
There is scant regard for the human element of the crime. The law does not look into why the
offender committed the crime. Capital punishment is a product of this kind of this school of
thought. Man is regarded as a moral creature who understands right from wrong. So that when
he commits a wrong, he must be prepared to accept the punishment therefore.

2. Positivist Theory – Man is subdued occasionally by a strange and morbid

phenomenon which conditions him to do wrong in spite of or contrary to his volition.
(Crime is essentially a social and natural phenomenon)

The purpose of penalty is reformation. There is great respect for the human element because
the offender is regarded as socially sick who needs treatment, not punishment. Crimes are
regarded as social phenomena which constrain a person to do wrong although not of his own
volition

Eclectic or Mixed Philosophy

This combines both positivist and classical thinking. Crimes that are economic and social and
nature should be dealt with in a positivist manner; thus, the law is more compassionate. Heinous
crimes should be dealt with in a classical manner; thus, capital punishment.

Sources of Criminal Law

1. The Revised Penal Code
2. Special Penal Laws – Acts enacted of the Philippine Legislature punishing offenses
or omissions.

Construction of Penal Laws

1. Criminal Statutes are liberally construed in favor of the offender. This means that no
person shall be brought within their terms who is not clearly within them, nor should
any act be pronounced criminal which is not clearly made so by statute.
2. The original text in which a penal law is approved in case of a conflict with an official
translation.
3. Interpretation by analogy has no place in criminal law

BASIC MAXIMS IN CRIMINAL LAW

Doctrine of Pro Reo

Whenever a penal law is to be construed or applied and the law admits of two interpretations –
one lenient to the offender and one strict to the offender – that interpretation which is lenient or
favorable to the offender will be adopted.

This is in consonance with the fundamental rule that all doubts shall be construed in favor of the
accused and consistent with presumption of innocence of the accused. This is peculiar only to
criminal law.

4
 5
Codal and Notes in CRIMINAL LAW BOOK I by RENE CALLANTA
Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege

There is no crime when there is no law punishing the same. This is true to civil law countries, but
not to common law countries.
Because of this maxim, there is no common law crime in the Philippines. No matter how
wrongful, evil or bad the act is, if there is no law defining the act, the same is not considered a
crime.

Common law crimes are wrongful acts which the community/society condemns as contemptible,
even though there is no law declaring the act criminal.

Not any law punishing an act or omission may be valid as a criminal law. If the law punishing an
act is ambiguous, it is null and void.

Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea

The act cannot be criminal where the mind is not criminal. This is true to a felony characterized
by dolo, but not a felony resulting from culpa. This maxim is not an absolute one because it is not
applied to culpable felonies, or those that result from negligence.

Utilitarian Theory or Protective Theory

The primary purpose of the punishment under criminal law is the protection of society from actual
and potential wrongdoers. The courts, therefore, in exacting retribution for the wronged society,
should direct the punishment to potential or actual wrongdoers, since criminal law is directed
against acts and omissions which the society does not approve. Consistent with this theory, the
mala prohibita principle which punishes an offense regardless of malice or criminal intent, should
not be utilized to apply the full harshness of the special law.

In Magno v CA, decided on June 26, 1992, the Supreme Court acquitted Magno of violation of
Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 when he acted without malice. The wrongdoer is not Magno but the
lessor who deposited the checks. He should have returned the checks to Magno when he pulled
out the equipment. To convict the accused would defeat the noble objective of the law and the
law would be tainted with materialism and opportunism.

MALA IN SE AND MALA PROHIBITA

Violations of the Revised Penal Code are referred to as malum in se, which literally means, that the
act is inherently evil or bad or per se wrongful. On the other hand, violations of special laws are
generally referred to as malum prohibitum.

Note, however, that not all violations of special laws are mala prohibita. While intentional felonies
are always mala in se, it does not follow that prohibited acts done in violation of special laws are
always mala prohibita. Even if the crime is punished under a special law, if the act punished is
one which is inherently wrong, the same is malum in se, and, therefore, good faith and the lack of
criminal intent is a valid defense; unless it is the product of criminal negligence or culpa.

Likewise when the special laws requires that the punished act be committed knowingly and
willfully, criminal intent is required to be proved before criminal liability may arise.

When the act penalized is not inherently wrong, it is wrong only because a law punishes the
same.

For example, Presidential Decree No. 532 punishes piracy in Philippine waters and the special
law punishing brigandage in the highways. These acts are inherently wrong and although they
are punished under special law, the acts themselves are mala in se; thus, good faith or lack of
criminal intent is a defense.

Mala in se vs. Mala prohibita

Crimes mala in se Crimes mala prohibita
Those so serious in their effects on Those violations of mere rules of
society as to call for almost convenience designed to secure a
unanimous condemnation of its more orderly regulation of the affairs
members; of society

5
 6
Codal and Notes in CRIMINAL LAW BOOK I by RENE CALLANTA

Criminal intent necessary Criminal intent is not necessary

Refers generally to felonies defined Refers generally to acts made
and penalized by the Revised Penal criminal by special laws
Code

Distinction between crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code and crimes punished
under special laws

1. As to moral trait of the offender

In crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code, the moral trait of the offender is
considered. This is why liability would only arise when there is dolo or culpa in the
commission of the punishable act.

In crimes punished under special laws, the moral trait of the offender is not considered; it
is enough that the prohibited act was voluntarily done.

2. As to use of good faith as defense

In crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code, good faith or lack of criminal intent is
a valid defense; unless the crime is the result of culpa

In crimes punished under special laws, good faith is not a defense

3. As to degree of accomplishment of the crime

In crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code, the degree of accomplishment of the
crime is taken into account in punishing the offender; thus, there are attempted,
frustrated, and consummated stages in the commission of the crime.

In crimes punished under special laws, the act gives rise to a crime only when it is
consummated; there are no attempted or frustrated stages, unless the special law
expressly penalize the mere attempt or frustration of the crime.

4. As to mitigating and aggravating circumstances

In crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code, mitigating and aggravating
circumstances are taken into account in imposing the penalty since the moral trait of the
offender is considered.

In crimes punished under special laws, mitigating and aggravating circumstances are not
taken into account in imposing the penalty.

5. As to degree of participation

In crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code, when there is more than one
offender, the degree of participation of each in the commission of the crime is taken into
account in imposing the penalty; thus, offenders are classified as principal, accomplice
and accessory.

In crimes punished under special laws, the degree of participation of the offenders is not
considered. All who perpetrated the prohibited act are penalized to the same extent.
There is no principal or accomplice or accessory to consider.

Test to determine if violation of special law is malum prohibitum or malum in se

Analyze the violation: Is it wrong because there is a law prohibiting it or punishing it as such? If
you remove the law, will the act still be wrong?

If the wording of the law punishing the crime uses the word “willfully”, then malice must be
proven. Where malice is a factor, good faith is a defense.

In violation of special law, the act constituting the crime is a prohibited act. Therefore culpa is not
a basis of liability, unless the special law punishes an omission.

When given a problem, take note if the crime is a violation of the Revised Penal Code or a special law.

6
 7
Codal and Notes in CRIMINAL LAW BOOK I by RENE CALLANTA

Art. 1. This Code shall take effect on January 1, 1932.

Art. 2. Application of its provisions. -- Except as provided in the treaties and

laws of preferential application, the provisions of this Code shall be
enforced not only within the Philippine Archipelago including its
atmosphere, its interior waters and Maritime zone, but also outside of its
jurisdiction, against those who:

1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship;

2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the

Philippine Islands or obligations and securities issued by the Government
of the Philippine Islands;

3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into

these islands of the obligations and securities mentioned in the preceding
number;

4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an

offense in the exercise of their functions; or (Some of these crimes are bribery,
fraud against national treasury, malversation of public funds or property, and illegal use
of public funds; e.g., A judge who accepts a bribe while in Japan.)

5. Should commit any crimes against the national security and the
law of nations, defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code. (These crimes
include treason, espionage, piracy, mutiny, inciting to war or giving motives for reprisals,
correspondence with hostile country, flight to enemy’s country and violation of neutrality)

• Rules as to crimes committed aboard foreign merchant vessels:

1. French Rule – Such crimes are not triable in the courts of that country,
unless their commission affects the peace and security of the territory or the
safety of the state is endangered.

2. English Rule – Such crimes are triable in that country, unless they merely
affect things within the vessel or they refer to the internal management thereof.
(This is applicable in the Philippines)

• Requirements of “an offense committed while on a Philippine Ship or Airship”

1. Registered with the Philippine Bureau of Customs

2. Ship must be in the high seas or the airship must be in international

airspace.

Under international law rule, a vessel which is not registered in accordance with the laws of any
country is considered a pirate vessel and piracy is a crime against humanity in general, such that
wherever the pirates may go, they can be prosecuted.

US v. Bull
A crime which occurred on board of a foreign vessel, which began when the ship
was in a foreign territory and continued when it entered into Philippine waters, is
considered a continuing crime. Hence within the jurisdiction of the local courts.

Two situations where the foreign country may not apply its criminal law even if a crime was
committed on board a vessel within its territorial waters and these are:

(1) When the crime is committed in a war vessel of a foreign country, because war vessels
are part of the sovereignty of the country to whose naval force they belong;

7
 8
Codal and Notes in CRIMINAL LAW BOOK I by RENE CALLANTA

(2) When the foreign country in whose territorial waters the crime was committed adopts the
French Rule, which applies only to merchant vessels, except when the crime committed
affects the national security or public order of such foreign country.

When public officers or employees commit an offense in the exercise of their functions

As a general rule, the Revised Penal Code governs only when the crime committed pertains to
the exercise of the public official’s functions, those having to do with the discharge of their duties
in a foreign country. The functions contemplated are those, which are, under the law, to be
performed by the public officer in the Foreign Service of the Philippine government in a foreign
country.

Exception: The Revised Penal Code governs if the crime was committed within the Philippine
Embassy or within the embassy grounds in a foreign country. This is because embassy grounds
are considered an extension of sovereignty.

Art 3. Definitions. -- Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies

(delitos).

Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit (dolo) but also by
means of fault (culpa).

There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent; and there
is fault when the wrongful results from imprudence, negligence, lack of
foresight, or lack of skill.

• Acts – an overt or external act

• Omission – failure to perform a duty required by law.

To be considered as a felony there must be an act or omission; a mere imagination no matter

how wrong does not amount to a felony. An act refers to any kind of body movement that
produces change in the outside world.

In felony by omission however, there must be a law requiring the

doing or the performance of an act. Thus, mere passive presence at the
scene of the crime, mere silence and failure to give the alarm, without
evidence of agreement or conspiracy is not punishable.

Example of an omission: failure to render assistance to anyone who is in danger of dying

or is in an uninhabited place or is wounded - abandonment.

• Felonies - acts and omissions punishable by the Revised Penal Code

• Offense- crimes punished under special law
• Misdemeanor- minor infraction of law, such as violation of ordinance
• Crime - acts and omissions punishable by any law

• HOW FELONIES ARE COMMITTED:

1. by means of deceit (dolo) - There is deceit when the act is performed with
deliberate intent.
Requisites:
a. freedom
b. intelligence
c. intent
Examples: murder, treason, and robbery.

2. by means of fault (culpa) - There is fault when the wrongful act results
from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.

8
 9
Codal and Notes in CRIMINAL LAW BOOK I by RENE CALLANTA

a. imprudence - deficiency of action; e.g. A was driving a truck along a road.

He hit B because it was raining - reckless imprudence.

b. Negligence - deficiency of perception; failure to foresee impending danger,

usually involves lack of foresight
c. Requisites:
1. Freedom
2. Intelligence
3. Imprudence, negligence, lack of skill or foresight
4. Lack of intent

Intentional felonies vs. Culpable Felonies

Intentional Felonies Culpable Felonies
Act or omission is malicious Act or omission is not malicious
Offender has the intention to cause Offender has no intention to cause
an injury to another injury
Act performed or omission incurred Act or omission results from
with deliberate intent imprudence, negligence, lack or
foresight or lack of skill

Voluntariness comprehends the concurrence of freedom of action, intelligence and the fact that
the act was intentional. In culpable felonies, there is no voluntariness if either freedom,
intelligence or imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill is lacking. Without
voluntariness, there can be no dolo or culpa, hence, there is no felony.

Criminal Intent

Criminal Intent is not deceit. Do not use deceit in translating dolo, because the nearest
translation is deliberate intent.

In criminal law, intent is categorized into two:

(1) General criminal intent; and

(2) Specific criminal intent.

General criminal intent is presumed from the mere doing of a wrong act. This does not require
proof. The burden is upon the wrong doer to prove that he acted without such criminal intent.

Specific criminal intent is not presumed because it is an ingredient or element of a crime, like
intent to kill in the crimes of attempted or frustrated homicide/parricide/murder. The prosecution
has the burden of proving the same.

Criminal intent is not necessary in these cases:

(1) When the crime is the product of culpa or negligence, reckless imprudence, lack
of foresight or lack of skill;

(2) When the crime is a prohibited act under a special law or what is called malum
prohibitum.

Distinction between intent and discernment

Intent is the determination to do a certain thing, an aim or purpose of the mind. It is the design to
resolve or determination by which a person acts.

On the other hand, discernment is the mental capacity to tell right from wrong. It relates to the
moral significance that a person ascribes to his act and relates to the intelligence as an element
of dolo, distinct from intent.

Distinction between intent and motive

9
 10
Codal and Notes in CRIMINAL LAW BOOK I by RENE CALLANTA
Intent is demonstrated by the use of a particular means to bring about a desired result – it is not a
state of mind or a reason for committing a crime.

On the other hand, motive implies motion. It is the moving power which impels one to do an act.
When there is motive in the commission of a crime, it always comes before the intent. But a
crime may be committed without motive.

If the crime is intentional, it cannot be committed without intent. Intent is manifested by the
instrument used by the offender. The specific criminal intent becomes material if the crime is to
be distinguished from the attempted or frustrated stage.

Criminal intent is on the basis of the act, not on the basis if what the offender says.

Look into motive to determine the proper crime which can be imputed to the accused

• Mistake of fact - is a misapprehension of fact on the part of the person who

caused injury to another. He is not criminally liable.

a. Requisites:
1. that the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused
believed them to be;
2. intention of the accused is lawful;
3. mistake must be without fault of carelessness.

Mistake of fact would be relevant only when the felony would have been intentional or through
dolo, but not when the felony is a result of culpa. When the felony is a product of culpa, do not
discuss mistake of fact

It exists when a person who in the exercise of due diligence, acts under
the influence of an erroneous appreciation of facts, which if true would
relieve him from criminal responsibility.

It is an omission or commission performed by the individual which is

the result of a misconception or misapprehension of events or facts before
him which in law is considered voluntary. The accused performed acts or
omissions which would be lawful, had it been true as he perceived them to
be. To be an absolutory cause, the mistake of facts as committed must
originate from legitimate sentiment or intention. The further requirement in
order to escape criminal responsibility, must be, that the mistake of facts was
done without negligence. The good faith of the offender maybe derived from
the sequence of events, before, during and after the alleged mistake of facts.
If at anytime there is a showing that the actor was at fault for not exercising
ordinary prudence, then he will be liable criminally, not however for dolo, but
for culpa.

b. Example: United States v. Ah Chong.

Ah Chong being afraid of bad elements, locked himself in his room by
placing a chair against the door. After having gone to bed, he was awakened by
somebody who was trying to open the door. He asked the identity of the person,
but he did not receive a response. Fearing that this intruder was a robber, he
leaped out of bed and said that he will kill the intruder should he attempt to enter.
At that moment, the chair struck him. Believing that he was attacked, he seized
a knife and fatally wounded the intruder.

Mens rea

The technical term mens rea is sometimes referred to in common parlance as the gravamen of
the offense. To a layman, that is what you call the “bullseye” of the crime. This term is used
synonymously with criminal or deliberate intent, but that is not exactly correct.

Mens rea of the crime depends upon the elements of the crime. You can only detect the mens
rea of a crime by knowing the particular crime committed. Without reference to a particular crime,
this term is meaningless. For example, in theft, the mens rea is the taking of the property of
another with intent to gain. In falsification, the mens rea is the effecting of the forgery with intent

10