Utilitarian Theory (protective theory) affirms that the primary function of punishment is the protective of society against actual

l and potential wrongdoers Equipoise Rule (presumption of innocence) when the circumstances are capable of two or more inferences, one which is consistent with the presumption of innocence while the other is compatible with guilt, the presumption of innocence must prevail and the court must acquit - If inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfil the test of moral certainty and will not justify a conviction - An accused is entitled to an acquittal unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt it is the primordial duty of the prosecution to present its side with clarity and persuasion, so that conviction becomes the only logical and inventible conclusion with moral certainty - Where the evidence on an issue of fact is in equipoise or there is doubt on which side the evidence preponderates, the party having the burden of proof loses - Applicable only where the evidence of the parties is evenly balanced, not where the prosecutions evidence is overwhelming and has not been overcome by the evidence of the defense Pro Reo Principle where the evidence on an issue of fact is in question or there is doubt on which side the evidence weighs, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the accused Felony proved to have been done or committed by the accused, the law presumes it to have been intentional Every man intends the natural or probable consequence of his voluntary act in the absence of proof to the contrary and such presumption must prevail unless a reasonable doubt exist from a consideration of the whole evidence Deceit (dolo) is the false representation of a matter of fact whether by words or conduct by false or misleading allegations or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed which deceives or id intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury

There must be a confluence of evil act and evil intent (actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea: the act itself does not make a man guilty unless his intention were so/ a crime is not committed if the mind of the person performing the act complained of is innocent) The act is performed with deliberate intent GR: mistake of fact or good faith of the accused is a valid defense in prosecution for a felony by dolo such defense negates malice or criminal intent

Malice (criminal intent/dolo) is a mental state or condition prompting the doing of an overt act without legal excuse or justification from which another suffers injury - Absence of malice, negligence, and imprudence, does not impose any criminal liability on the actor - Not often being understood to require general malevolence toward a particular individual and signifying rather the intent from which flows any unlawful and injurious act committed without legal justification Specific Intent the malefactor is determinative of the crime charged such specific intent must be alleged in the information and proved by the prosecution - May be proved by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence (requisites: a. there is more than one circumstance b. the facts from which the inference are derived have been established and c. the combination of all the circumstances is such as to warrant a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt) - Is used to describe a state of mind which exists where circumstances indicate that an offender actively desired certain criminal consequences or objectively desired a specific result to follow his act or failure to act - Involves a state of the mind - It is the particular purpose or specific intention in doing prohibited act - A definite and actual purpose to accomplish some particular thing - Is not presumed, it existence must be proved by the state just as any other essential element: by the nature of the act, the circumstances under which it was committed, the means employed and the motive of the accused

General Intent is an element in all crimes but malice is properly applied only to deliberate acts done on purpose and with design - Evil intent must unite with unlawful act for there to be felony - A deliberate and unlawful act gives rise to presumption of malice by intent - Presumed from the criminal act and in the absence of any general intent is relied upon defence such absence must be proved by the accused - Evil intent is in general an inseparable element in every crime, any such mistake of fact shows the act committed to have proceed from no sort of evil in the min necessarily relieves the actor from criminal liability provided always there is no fault or negligence on his part - A clear and evident manner to exclude every possible doubt as to the homicidal (or murderous) intent of the aggressor Motive reason which prompts the accused to engage in a particular criminal activity - Not an essential element of a crime and hence the prosecution need not prove the same - Proof of motive for the commission of the offense charge does not show guilt and absence of proof of such motive does not establish the innocence of accused for the crime charged - Could be important and consequential when the evidence on the commission of the crime would be short of moral certainty - Is the key element where establishing through circumstantial evidence - is the moving power that impels one to action for a definite result Mistake of fact is sufficient to negative a particular intent which under the law is necessary ingredient of the offense charged cancels the presumption of intent and works an acquittal; except in those cases where the circumstance demand a conviction under the penal provisions touching criminal negligence and in cases where under the provisions of article 1 of the penal code one voluntarily committing a crime or misdemeanour incurs criminal liability for any wrongful act committed by him even though it be different from that which he intended to commit

Voluntary Act free, intelligent and intentional act and roundly asserts that without intention there can be no crime Ignorantia facti excusat ignorance or mistake in point of fact is, in all cases of supposed offense, a sufficient excuse Actus me invito factus non est meus actus - an act done by me against my will is not my act Criminal Liability incurred by any person who commits a felony although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended - A person committing felony is responsible for all the natural and logical consequences resulting from it although the unlawful act performed is different from the one he intended - Where the death results as direct consequence of the use of illegal violence, the mere fact that the diseased or weakened condition of the injured person contributed to his death, does not relieve the illegal aggressor of criminal responsibility El que es causa de la causa es causa del mal causado he who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused Mala in se cannot absorb mala prohibita crimes - Felony is criminal intent (dolo) or negligence (culpa) Mala Prohibita crimes are the special laws enacting them Classical Theory - posits that a human person is essentially a moral creature with an absolute free will to choose between good and evil.a It asserts that one should only be adjudged or held accountable for wrongful acts so long as free will appears unimpaired Classical penal system - is that humans are rational and calculating beings who guide their actions with reference to the principles of pleasure and pain. They refrain from criminal acts if threatened with punishment sufficient to cancel the hope of possible gain or advantage in committing the crime. Here, criminal liability is thus based on the free will and moral blame of the actor Identity of mens rea defined as a guilty mind, a guilty or wrongful purpose or criminal intent is the predominant consideration

Felony - malicious, villainous, and/or proceeding from an evil heart or purpose Intentional felony - requires the existence of dolus malus that the act or omission be done willfully, maliciously, with deliberate evil intent, and with malice aforethought Culpable felonies or criminal negligence - the injury inflicted on another is unintentional, the wrong done being simply the result of an act performed without malice or criminal design Intent to kill/animus interficendi cannot and should not be inferred, unless there is proof beyond reasonable doubt of such intent Iniuria ex affectu facientis consistat - injury arises from the mental state of the wrongdoer Specific animus iniuriandi or malicious intention - to do wrong against the physical integrity or well-being of a person, so as to incapacitate and deprive the victim of certain bodily functions Fault (culpa) - when the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill. Reckless imprudence or negligence - consists of a voluntary act done without malice, from which an immediate personal harm, injury or material damage results by reason of an inexcusable lack of precaution or advertence on the part of the person committing it Simple imprudence or negligence - comprises an act done without grave fault, from which an injury or material damage ensues by reason of a mere lack of foresight or skill Proximate cause - in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred. - that acting first and producing the injury, either immediately or by setting other events in motion, all constituting a natural and continuous chain of events, each having a close causal connection with its immediate predecessor, the final event in the chain immediately effecting the injury as a natural and probable result of the cause which first acted, under such circumstances that the person responsible for the first event

should, as an ordinarily prudent and intelligent person, have reasonable ground to expect at the moment of his act or default that an injury to some person might probably result therefrom Well-settled doctrine - is that a person, while not criminally liable, may still be civilly liable United States v. Brobst (doctrine) - where death results as a direct consequence of the use of illegal violence, the mere fact that the diseased or weakened condition of the injured person contributed to his death, does not relieve the illegal aggressor of criminal responsibility A person committing a felony - is responsible for all the natural and logical consequences resulting from it although the unlawful act performed is different from the one he intended Legal impossibility - occurs where the intended acts, even if completed, would not amount to a crime. Ex: Impossibility of killing a person already dead. Is a defense which can be invoked to avoid criminal liability for an attempt Factual impossibility- occurs when extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond his control prevent the consummation of the intended crime. Ex: Man who puts his hand in the coat pocket of another with the intention to steal the latter's wallet and finds the pocket empty. - Factual impossibility of the commission of the crime is not a defense. If the crime could have been committed had the circumstances been as the defendant believed them to be, it is no defense that in reality the crime was impossible of commission. Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemos - no distinction between factual or physical impossibility and legal impossibility

A prior and remote cause cannot be made the be of an action if such remote cause did nothing more than furnish the condition or give rise to the occasion by which the injury was made possible, if there

intervened between such prior or remote cause and the injury a distinct, successive, unrelated, and efficient cause of the injury, even though such injury would not have happened but for such condition or occasion. If no danger existed in the condition except because of the independent cause, such condition was not the proximate cause. And if an independent negligent act or defective condition sets into operation the instances which result in injury because of the prior defective condition, such subsequent act or condition is the proximate cause Intent to kill may be proved by evidence of: a. Motive b. The nature or number of weapons used in the commission of the crime c. The nature and number of wounds inflicted on the victim d. The manner the crime was committed e. Words uttered by the offender at the time the injuries are inflicted by him on the victim Requisites: Art. 4(1) wrongful act done be different from that which he intended a. The intended act is felonious b. The resulting act is likewise a felony c. The unintended albeit graver wrong was primarily caused by the actors wrongful acts Art 4(2) a. the commission of the offense is inherently impossible of accomplishment b. the means employed is either: inadequate or ineffectual Element of dolo or malice a. freedom, refers to an act done with deliberation and with power to choose between two things b. intelligence, concerns the ability to determine the morality of human acts, as well as the capacity to distinguish between a licit and an illicit act. c. intent, involves an aim or a determination to do a certain act Element of intent a. the state of mind accompanying an act, especially a forbidden act

b. it refers to the purpose of the mind and the resolve with which a person proceeds c. concerns the result of the act d. purpose of using a particular means to produce the result e. the existence of malicious intent must be proven beyond reasonable doubt In order that a person may be criminally liable for a felony different from that which he intended to commit, it is indispensible a. that a felony was committed b. that the wrong done to the aggrieved person be the direct consequence of the crime committed by the perpetrator The rule is that the death of the victim must be the a. direct b. natural c. logical consequence of the wounds inflicted upon him by the accused Legal impossibility would apply to those circumstances where a. the motive, desire and expectation is to perform an act in violation of the law b. there is intention to perform the physical act c. there is a performance of the intended physical act d. the consequence resulting from the intended act does not amount to a crime Nature one impossible of accomplishment a. legal impossibility b. factual/physical impossibility of accomplishing the intended act in order to qualify the act as an impossible crime