Performance Task 4 Forensic 4Performance Task 4 Forensic 4, Cheat Sheet of Forensics

Download Performance Task 4 Forensic 4Performance Task 4 Forensic 4 and more Cheat Sheet Forensics in PDF only on Docsity! AN ACT REVISING THE PENAL CODE AND OTHER PENAL LAWS Chapter One Felonies Article 3. Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies. Not only can felonies be committed through the use of dishonesty (dolo), but also through the use of fault (culpa). When a wrongdoing is the consequence of imprudence, negligence, a lack of forethought, or a lack of expertise, this is considered to be fault, as opposed to deceit, which occurs when the act is carried out with the intention of doing wrong. Before a felony can be committed, the following conditions must be met: (1) there must be an act or omission; (2) the act or omission must be criminal under the Revised Penal Code; and (3) the conduct must be carried out or the omission must be incurred by the use of dolo or culpa. Dolo is the Japanese word for "deceit," which refers to the method by which a felony is done. A deceitful act is one that is carried out with the intention of being dishonest. Criminal intent is not necessary in these cases: a. When the crime is the product of culpa or negligence, reckless imprudence, lack of foresight or lack of skill. b. When the crime is a prohibited act under a special law or what is called malum prohibitum. In criminal law, intent is categorized into two: a. General criminal intent; and b. Specific criminal intent. Simply engaging in illegal behavior raises reasonable suspicion that the offender intends to commit a crime. There is no need to provide proof for this. It is up to the person who committed the wrongdoing to demonstrate that they did not act with the intention to commit the crime. Because specific criminal intent is an ingredient or element of a crime, such as the intent to kill in the crimes of attempted or frustrated homicide/parricide/murder, a presumption of specific criminal intent cannot be made. The onus of proof rests squarely on the shoulders of the prosecution. Distinction between intent and discernment. An individual's mental goal or objective can be referred to as their intent. Intent is synonymous with determination. It is the intention to solve a problem or the firm decision that drives a person's behavior. On the other hand, discernment refers to the capacity of the mind to differentiate between right and wrong. It pertains to the intellect as an aspect of dolo, which is distinct from intent, and it has to do with the moral value that a person ascribes to the act that he or she commits. Clarification of the difference between intent and motive. Intention is not a state of mind or a rationale for committing a crime; rather, it is proved by the use of a particular means to bring about a desired result. Intent can be shown by the following: On the other hand, the word "motive" suggests activity. It is the driving force that compels one to carry out a certain action. When there is a motive for committing a crime, the reason will always come before the desire to commit the crime. However, a crime can be done for no apparent reason at all. If the offense is one that requires intent, then it cannot be carried out without that intent. The offender's choice of weapon is decisive in determining their level of intent. The explicit purpose to commit the crime is relevant if the completed act is to be distinguished from the stages of the crime known as attempted and frustrated. The inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person executing or omitting to undertake an act is the essence of the concept of criminal negligence. It would be a case of reckless imprudence to continue to put yourself in that scenario when it is abundantly evident that you are putting yourself in harm's way. You only have a case of simple neglect on your hands if the threat that might be caused by such irresponsibility is not obvious, not readily apparent, or immediately imminent.  Mistake in blow- it refers to the act of hitting somebody other than the intended target due to a lack of competence or fortunate circumstances (this is a complicated offense under Art. 48). For example, B and C were strolling together at the time of the incident. Although A intended to shoot B, he ended up hurting C instead. The term "aberratio ictus" refers to a situation in which a person aimed a blow at a specific victim, but due to poor aim, the blow fell on another person instead. The term "aberratio ictus" refers to a situation in which both the intended victim and the actual victim are present at the site of the crime. The presence of aberratio ictus almost always precedes the commission of a serious crime. Given this fact, the punishment for the more severe offense is served throughout the course of the longest possible sentence.  The injurious result is greater than intended – causing injury graver than intended or expected (this is a mitigating circumstance due to the lack of intent to commit such a grave wrong under Art. 13). The doctrine of praeter intentionem is considered mitigating and is addressed explicitly in paragraph 3 of Article 13. However, for this scenario to be considered a case of praeter intentionem, there needs to be a significant gap between the methods that were used and the criminal that was committed as a result. Since the perpetrator acted with the intent to commit a crime in each of these scenarios, he or she may still be held accountable under criminal law. The doctrine of proximate causation states that there must exist an adequate cause that, given the natural order of things and the specific circumstances surrounding the case, will inevitably result in the occurrence of the event in question. Proximate Cause is negated by active force, a different act, or a fact that is utterly foreign from the felonious act of the accused, which acts as a sufficient intervening cause, are all examples of things that can disprove the existence of a proximate cause and the victim's willful act caused the harm or damage that was sustained as a result. The criminal does not necessarily have to have physical contact with the victim's body for a proximate cause. It is sufficient evidence that the offender implanted the thought that led the victim to put himself in danger within the victim's consciousness. 2. By any person engaging in conduct that, were it possible to carry it out, would constitute an offense against persons or property; however, either due to the inherent impossibility of the task at hand or as a result of the use of means that are inadequate or ineffective, the task cannot be carried out. Notes:  An offender must have the belief that he can carry out the crime he intends to commit; for example, a man who stabs another person who he knew to be dead cannot be held guilty for an impossible crime.  The purpose of the law is to punish those with criminal intentions.  There is no such thing as an attempted or frustrated crime that cannot be committed.  Felonies against persons: parricide, murder, homicide, infanticide, bodily injuries, etc.  Crimes against property such as robbing, stealing, usurping, and swindling are considered felonies.  A believed that B was just sleeping, which is an impossible assumption given the circumstances. B had already passed away. An attempt at B. A is responsible for paying. If A shot B despite knowing that B was already dead, then A is not accountable for B's death.