EQUIPOISE RULE
By the Accused
- also known as the equiponderance of evidence rule.
- Under this rule, 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. The equipoise rule finds application if the
inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations,
one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other
consistent with his guilt, for then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral
certainty, and does not suffice to produce a conviction. Briefly stated, the
needed quantum of proof to convict the accused of the crime charged is
found lacking. And in this case, the petitioner must be declared innocent and
set free (Maria Tin v. People).
- If the evidence pertinent to a disputed fact is equally balanced or does not
produce a rational belief of its existence, the party holding the affirmative as
to such fact must fail (People v. Ordoa).
- When there is nothing in the evidence which shall incline it to one side or
the other, the court will find for the defendant(Municipality of Candijay v. CA)
- is the rule which states that when the evidence of the prosecution and the
defense are so evenly balanced the appreciation of such evidence calls for
tilting of the scales in favor of the accused. Thus, the evidence for the
prosecution must be heavier to overcome the presumption of innocence of
the accused.
Rule 131 Rules of Court Burden of Proof
What to prove in criminal cases:
A. By the Prosecution:
1. Each and every element of the crime charged in the Information
2. Where there be two or more accused, the prosecution must prove the
conspiracy and the participation of each of the several accused in the
commission of the crime
3. All aggravating circumstances, whether ordinary, special or qualifying, as
are alleged in the Information
4. The civil liability based on the crime
B.
1. Non-Liability
a). His Affirmative Defenses by clear, positive and convincing evidence
b). His negative defenses such as denial alibi, or mistake in identity
2 Lesser liability: the offenses is a lesser offense or lesser stage of
commission, or that his participation is of lesser degree
3. Mitigating circumstances
What is CRIMINAL INTENT?
The intent to commit a crime: malice, as evidenced by a criminal act; an
intent to deprive or defraud the true owner of his property. People v.
Moore. 3 N. Y. Cr. R. 458. (source: Black's Law Dictionary)
Criminal Intent: Overview
Criminal intent is a necessary component of a "conventional" crime and
involves a conscious decision on the part of one party to injure or deprive
another. It is one of three categories of "mens rea," the basis for the
establishment of guilt in a criminal case. There are multiple shades of
criminal intent that may be applied in situations ranging from outright
premeditation to spontaneous action.
It is possible to establish criminal intent even when a crime is not
premeditated. Individuals who commit a crime spontaneously may still
understand that their actions will cause harm to another party and
contravene existing criminal law. In other words, an individual that takes or
withholds action with the knowledge that such behavior will lead to the
commission of a crime can be said to possess criminal intent.
Criminal Intent: What You Should Know
While criminal intent is a necessary component of mens rea in virtually every
modern legal system, its particulars may vary between jurisdictions. There
often exists a distinction between "basic intent" and "specific intent."
Since it requires a lighter burden of proof, the former is used more often to
establish criminal intent. For instance, an individual who strikes a pedestrian
crossing the street in a marked crosswalk can be said to have exhibited
"basic intent" whether or not they intended to cause the pedestrian harm.
There are two reasons for this. First, the driver may have ignored state and
local law requiring vehicles to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks. Absent such
laws, the driver either failed to pay close attention to the road ahead or
assumed that the pedestrian would be able to avoid their oncoming vehicle.
In either case, the driver abdicated their legal responsibility to take
reasonable precautions to ensure the safety of others on the road.
"Specific intent" is invoked less frequently and often applies to cases in which
the accused intends to commit a crime but has not yet done so. It may be
used to justify preventive detentions associated with terrorism, treason or
sabotage. For instance, an individual who has communicated his intent to
assassinate an official may be judged to exhibit specific intent on the basis of
his or her pronouncements.
Criminal intent may be further categorized as either "direct" or "oblique."
Defined as a desire to commit a specific act in the expectation that it will
result in a specific outcome, the former may be used to prove premeditation.
For instance, an individual who purchases a firearm and uses it in a mugging
exhibits direct intent to threaten another with deadly force.
By contrast, "oblique" intent may be used to establish guilt in cases that
involve unintended consequences. An individual who undertakes a specific
action with the knowledge that it may cause certain consequences can be
said to have oblique intent. For instance, an individual who injures someones
by firing a gun into the air near a crowd may be held responsible for that
injury despite a lack of direct intent to cause harm.
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
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.
In criminal law, there is a sharp distinction between intent and motive. But
this distinction is often neglected. Motive is the moving power which impels
one to action for a definite result, whereas intent is the purpose to use a
particular means to effect such result. Motive is often not an element of a
crime, while intent normally is. The question of motive then suggests an
inquiry into the state of mind of a person and his thoughts (which is difficult, if
not impossible, to conclusively determine), while intent can be established
based on a persons manifest, external actions, e.g., intent to kill is
established when a person inflicts mortal wounds on a person. By
distinguishing between intent and motive, the chances of legislating thought-
crimes are avoided since the commonly required element of criminal intent
will only be manifested once there are overt acts (or omissions) by an
accused. It is a principle in criminal law that one is punished for ones
actions, not for what one thinks.
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.
by means of fault (culpa) There is fault when the wrongful act results from
imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.
Imprudence deficiency of action; e.g. A was driving a truck along a road.
He hit B because it was raining reckless imprudence.
Negligence deficiency of perception; failure to foresee impending danger,
usually involves lack of foresight
c. Requisites:
Freedom
Intelligence
Imprudence, negligence, lack of skill or foresight
Lack of intent
MISTAKE OF FACT
Any mistaken belief other than a mistake of law. Examples include
erroneous beliefs about the meaning of some term or about the identity of
some person.
In criminal law, a mistake of fact can usually operate as a defense so long as
it is reasonable. With crimes that require specific intent, even an
unreasonable mistake of fact might work as a defense.
Mistakes of fact arise when a criminal defendant misunderstood some fact
that negates an element of the crime. For instance, if an individual is charged
with larceny but believed that the property he took was rightfully his, this
misunderstanding negates any intent to deprive another of the property. One
important qualification, however, is that this mistake of fact must be honest
and reasonable. Thus, a defendant cannot later claim that he or she was
mistaken when he or she actually knew the situation. Likewise, the mistake
must be one that would appear reasonable to a judge or jury. If the same
individual was repeatedly told that the property was not his, and he could not
take it, it would no longer be reasonable for him to mistakenly have believed
that he could rightfully take the property.
Mistakes of fact may apply to a variety of crimes. Some crimes may set forth
that mistake of fact is a defense. Otherwise, if the criminal defendant can
prove that the mistake reasonably negated an element of the crime, the
defense will usually be held to apply and absolve the defendant of liability.
MISTAKE OF LAW
Mistake of law is a defense that the criminal defendant misunderstood or was
ignorant of the law as it existed at the time. The onus is generally placed on
individuals to be aware of the laws of their state or community, and thus this
defense only applies in very limited circumstances. For example, while a
defendant will not be able to claim that he was not aware that murder was a
crime, he may be able to argue that he was not aware of some obscure
traffic law.
Specifically, mistake of law can be used as a defense in four limited
circumstances:
1. When the law has not been published;
2. When the defendant relied upon a law or statute that was later
overturned or deemed unconstitutional;
3. When the defendant relied upon a judicial decision that was later
overruled; or
4. When the defendant relied upon an interpretation by an applicable
official.
Additionally, the defendants reliance on any of these sources must have
been reasonable, much like mistake of fact. Thus, a defendant cannot claim
that he was relying on a case from 200 years ago when it is apparent that
there have been subsequent developments in the law.
It is also important to note that, while reliance on an interpretation of an
official may include judges or federal or state agencies, it does not include
reliance on the statements of a private attorney. It is therefore important to
ensure that any attorney from whom you obtain advice is knowledgeable and
trustworthy.
Ex.
On March 19, 1910, the Supreme Court held in the case of United States vs.
Ah Chong (G.R no. L-5272), that a mistake of fact can be used as a
complete self-defense to be exonerated from a crime.
This case happened during the American regime, there were a lot of lawless
element hiding and they used to enter the residence of the people. So when
darkness comes, all houses are already closed. In the case of Ah Chong
while he was resting in the middle of the night, he heard some loud knocks at
the door so Ah Chong challenged and ask, Who are you?! several times,
but no response was given. So it made Ah Chong think that the one who is
trying to open the door is a criminal or a lawless element.
Then all of the sudden the door swung open and came a dark shadow
rushing towards, and Ah Chong believing that he is being attacked, he get
hold of a bladed weapon and then stab the rushing black shadow. And when
he put on the light he recognized that it was his roommate in the house. So
Ah Chong was charged with murder.
The S.C under the principle of mistake of fact acquitted Ah Chong.
There are 3 requisites for an accused to be entitled for a mistake of fact:
1. That the act would have been lawful have the facts been what he believed
him to be.
Ah Chong at that time when he challenged the man who was
knocking at his door and nobody responded. He already have in
mind that it could be a lawless criminal.
And when the door swung open, believing that his life is in danger he
attacked. There was unlawful aggression, he repealed what he
believed to be an unlawful aggression by holding that bladed weapon
and stabbed the man. It turned out that there was a MISTAKE OF
FACT because the person whom he stabbed was not a criminal.
2. The purpose of the act must have been lawful.
3. There must be no fault or negligence on the part of the actor.
Ah Chong has no negligence or fault on his part, because he had
already challenged whoever was knocking at his door.
So all of the requisites under mistake of fact are present, hence he was
acquitted.
MISTAKE OF LAW:
A and B is a married couple in the Philippines. A went to the states to look for
a greener pasture. While there, he applied for divorce and later on it was
approved by the court in the states in America. And then B in the Philippines
after having learned that his husband is coming to be wed in states, she
accepted suitor and marry the man.
Later on after marrying the man, B was charged with Bigamy. B now invoked
the MISTAKE OF FACT. He argued that she never knew that she could not
marry she could not marry. It is her honest belief that she could already
remarry in the Philippines without being prosecuted with bigamy.
The Supreme court held that , it is not meritorious defense, what applies here
is IGNORANCE OF THE LAW. Ignorance of the law excuses no one
In conclusion: Mistake of Fact maybe invoked as a complete self-defense to
exonerate an accused from a crime as against Mistake of the law which
cannot be used as a self-defense because Ignorance of the law excuses no
one.
Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea. No crime is committed if the mind
of the person performing the act complained of is innocent. As we held in
Tabuena vs. Sandiganbayan:[23]
The rule was reiterated in People v. Pacana, although this case involved
falsification of public documents and estafa:
Ordinarily, evil intent must unite with an unlawful act for there to be a crime.
Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea. There can be no crime when the
criminal mind is wanting. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. CORA
ABELLA OJEDA)
Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea
The act will not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty.
Generally speaking, for a person to be found guilty of a criminal offence he or
she must have
committed an illegal act (actus reus) and had the required state of mind
(mens rea) for the criminal offence.
Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea, which expounds a basic principle in
criminal law that a crime is not committed if the mind of the person
performing the act complained of be innocent. Thus, to constitute a crime,
the act must, except in certain crimes made such by statute, be accompanied
by a criminal intent. It is true that a presumption of criminal intent may arise
from proof of the commission of a criminal act; and the general rule is that if it
is proved that the accused committed the criminal act charged, it will be
presumed that the act was done with criminal intention and that it is for the
accused to rebut this presumption. But it must be borne in mind that the act
from which such presumption springs must be a criminal act. (Abdulla vs
People)