YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → CRIMINAL LAW 1: ARTS. 11-13

CRIMINAL LAW 1: ARTS. 11-13 — Transcript

by Dean Festin Law · 8,632 words · 2,020 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:04[Music]
0:05we'll be discussing on
0:08um
0:09the justifying circumstances under
0:12articulation
0:28okay
0:31justifying circumstances
0:40when you talk about justifying
0:41circumstances what do you mean
0:44if present what is the consequence if if
0:47there is a justifying circumstance
0:50in a particular case
0:52if there's a justifying circumstance
0:54then
0:56it is deemed as the app is in accordance
1:00with law
1:02that is it is legal
1:05that the upper form is no full
1:08so therefore in justifying there is no
1:12civil liability a criminal liability
1:16there is no criminal liability because
1:18the app is going to be
1:20in accordance with the law okay it is
1:24legal
1:26and how do you compare this to article
1:2912
1:31article 12 speaks about accepting
1:34circumstances
1:37okay what is the similarity and the
1:39differences between the two
1:42okay the similarity is that both of them
1:46have no
1:48criminal liability
1:53as we mentioned
1:54a while ago
1:56justifying there is no criminal
1:58liability because
2:00the app is in accordance with loop
2:04so the app is though full
2:08in cream in uh
2:10accepting there is also no civil liberty
2:12no criminal ability
2:14but the reason is that is different from
2:17that of the justifying
2:20if in the justifying the esteem to be
2:22lawful and accepting the app is what
2:25um
2:26there is a crime but there is no
2:29criminal ability
2:33but there is no criminal liability
2:37there is no criminal liability because
2:40of the absence of the
2:44elements of voluntaries
2:48what's
2:58and
3:00intelligence and
3:02intent like freedom freedom is negated
3:06by
3:07irresistible force
3:09irresistible force
3:11is
3:12what
3:13okay uh is this an accepting
3:15circumstance
3:19if a crime is committed by invisible
3:22person
3:23or by it by an insane person
3:26or one which is committed by a minor who
3:29is less than 15 years of age
3:31or above 15 below 18 acting without
3:34deserving he lacks intelligence
3:37okay
3:41a 10 year old child who stabbed and
3:43killed this classmate
3:46who is also a 10 year old child
3:49okay is there a crime committed yes
3:53a classmate died
3:56is there a criminal ability no
3:59because they're
4:00up because of the absence of
4:02intelligence
4:07is ten years and below there is no
4:09criminal liability
4:11so
4:14justifying no criminal ability in
4:17accepting no criminal ability
4:20justifying because it is perfectly
4:22lawful or legal or in accordance with
4:25law
4:26in exempting no and there's a crime but
4:30there is no criminal ability because of
4:32the absence of qualitativeness
4:34okay and so far as civil liability
4:37this is where they differ
4:40in uh
4:45justifying there is also
4:48no
4:49civil
4:51liability
4:56talk about justifying no criminal as
4:59well as no
5:01cv liability
5:05is is this rule an absolute rule no
5:09there is an exception which is
5:11paragraph
5:14okay
5:15paragraph 4 speaks about avoidance of
5:18greater evil
5:21what about
5:22in exempting an exempting
5:26okay
5:27opposite to that of justifying there is
5:30civil
5:31liability
5:37usually when
5:38it's asked in the bar exam
5:41you differentiate between the two
5:43differentiate justifying from that of
5:45accepting circumstances
5:49so no criminal ability justifying no cv
5:53liability as well no criminal no civil
5:56liability except paragraph four
5:59in accepting no criminal ability however
6:02it differs in justifying inductor is
6:05single liability
6:07except
6:08paragraphs four
6:10and seven of what article 12.
6:15now due to paragraph four of article
6:22accepting
6:23there is availability except paragraph
6:26four and
6:27seven
6:30sports speaks about uh
6:32accident
6:35and seven speaks about prevented by some
6:38low full
6:39or what we call as insuperable cause
6:45this instance says there is no there are
6:48no cv liability
6:51but the general rule is that there is
6:53availability
6:55so this is how they differ both of them
7:00okay
7:04now let's go to the instances of
7:06justifying circumstances
7:10in the first instance the first two self
7:13defense
7:24uh
7:24the second instance under justifying is
7:28defense
7:30of a relative
7:34the third is defense of
7:40a stranger
7:44okay
7:47number one so far self defense is
7:49concerned
7:59you have a low full aggression
8:07which is also the first and the first
8:09element of defense of a relative and the
8:12fans of australia
8:16unlawful aggression there's no
8:18self-defense defense of a relative as
8:21well as defense of a stranger
8:23second there is a reason reasonable
8:27necessity of the means employee
8:30reasonable
8:32rnf necessity of the means employed to
8:36prevent or
8:38repel the same
8:42this is also the second element of
8:44defense of our relative and defense of
8:46this stranger
8:48third
8:51this is how they differ and so far as
8:53self-defense is concerned this is
8:55peculiar to it there is lack
8:58of so patient
9:03provocation
9:05on the part of the person defending
9:10himself
9:13lack of sufficient provocation on the
9:16part of the person defending
9:18himself
9:20okay
9:21defense of a relative
9:24defense of morality what is the third
9:26element
9:30case in case the provocation
9:33was given by the person attacked or the
9:36person being defended to
9:39the person
9:45the the person defending
10:17who is uh being defended too
10:20by the accused in case
10:22the provocation comes from him
10:25for as long as the accused who defended
10:27him have no part they're in then he can
10:31claim defense of a reality
10:34third
10:36defense of a stranger
10:39talk about defense of a stranger
10:42the third element they differ in the
10:44term in the third element
10:47okay uh he not he should not be induced
10:51by
10:53revenge
10:55resentment or evil okay
10:58okay i'm sure you memorize this already
11:01revenge
11:02resentment
11:04or evil voting
11:09so the on the third element they differ
11:11but on the first and the second
11:14they are perfectly the same
11:17but all you have to know is
11:19if sofas our defense of a relative is
11:22concerned
11:23you should know who are the relatives
11:26if it does not fall under this one
11:29it probably will be in the defense of
11:31stranger provided that all of the
11:34elements are present
11:35provided that he is not induced by
11:38revenge
11:39by revised resentment or
11:42he had other reasons why he
11:45seemingly defended the stranger
11:48but because there is already an existing
11:51match between him
11:53and the victim and he had his evil
11:56motive or resentment or it is an act of
11:59revenge
12:00uh which is the primary consideration
12:03why he defended the stranger
12:05then it is that applicable ticket that
12:07basis
12:10let's go on one by one on what is a low
12:13fuel
12:26okay
12:27you talk about unlawful aggression what
12:30does it mean
12:32uh basic
12:33uh principles in
12:36unlawful aggression is that number one
12:39it should not be induced by revenge
12:42uh
12:43it is
12:44cannot be based on suspicion and
12:47uh
12:48gut feel
12:49or conjectures
13:02it must be actually
13:06or imminent it cannot be based on
13:10surmises conjectures
13:13or suspicion
13:15it must be actual or imminent when you
13:17talk about the word imminent what does
13:19it mean it means that it is at the point
13:22of happening
13:23it is the point of happiness
13:26okay there is what
13:29very
13:31parent one's
13:33life
13:37limb
13:38or
13:39right
13:44a property coupled with also fair to us
13:46like when you talk about peril
13:49there is a
13:51danger
13:54or trap
13:57there is a danger or threat to one's
13:59life limb or right which is actual or
14:02even
14:04so if you're going to apply this
14:07self defense there is an actual threat
14:09towards life
14:11or lean or a strike
14:29danger or threat
14:31same goes with the defense of a relative
14:34there must be
14:36a
14:38threat and danger or peril to the life
14:41of the person you are defending
14:46young person defend
14:48who is allegedly
14:50uh
14:51defending
14:52a relative
14:54parent relative
14:56danger
15:02there is no
15:03uh defense of a reality
15:06why because there is no local aggression
15:09and so also goes through the defense of
15:11a stranger
15:17or dangerous
15:18life
15:19lean or right
15:22if there is none then forget about
15:25defense defense of a relative defense of
15:28a stranger defense of
15:30oneself
15:31okay
15:34when you talk about uh
15:36reasonable necessity of the means of
15:43what is the consideration
15:45consideration is that
15:49if there is
16:01[Music]
16:07that the action is disproportionate
16:09right
16:11again we we we
16:15we will ask if there is trail to do this
16:17thing to lifelink alright
16:20now uh does it also mean that just
16:23because a person is uh
16:26being attacked with a web with a knife
16:29or with a balisong as a weapon
16:32he can only defend himself by using a
16:35the same thing
16:37a knife or a ballison
16:40where he is we where he has already a
16:43gun tucked in his face
16:45to defend himself
16:48no but
16:49so if there is uh
16:52the test of reasonableness that's a
16:54reasonable well unless if it is the
16:56if the weapon is the only
17:01available means to defend oneself
17:15foreign
17:22this is only the available
17:25means to defend yourself at that
17:27particular time when there is peril to
17:29your life then by all means use it
17:33so that's the test of reasonableness
17:35that's the first one second one is if
17:38uh if the person has acted under
17:42the instinct of
17:43self-preservation
17:50if he acted under the instinct of
17:53self-preservation
17:55at that moment
17:57to defend himself like self defense no
18:00by all means use it
18:02but always do so okay
18:05you are not
18:06playing repetitions
18:11when you talk about lack of
18:13provocation the third element
18:16the
18:17lack of sufficient progression
18:23let's talk about sufficient propagation
18:31does it talk about provocation lack of
18:34promotion no
18:37it talks about lack of sufficient
18:40provocation
18:46examination when you
18:49and you always only indicated
18:51provocation that is wrong
18:54because there could be provocation the
18:56provocation is not sufficient okay
19:00when you talk about suffocation if it is
19:02proportionate
19:06proportionate or adequate
19:11and equate
19:12for one posterior its commission
19:14adequate to steer
19:17one
19:18to each commission
19:24that's the meaning of lack of sufficient
19:27propagation
19:32a person can still raise
19:35uh self-defense even if there's
19:36provocation yes
19:39okay so i will go to show you
19:42uh situations when
19:44one can raise still self defense okay
19:47maybe you can still raise self defense
19:51under the following condition even if
19:54there is provocation
19:58number one
20:00okay
20:02if there is provocation
20:06but it is not sufficient
20:11so person can still raise
20:14uh
20:16self-defense even if there's promotion
20:19first long as it is not
20:21sufficient provocation contemplated
20:23under the revised panel code
20:27or it is not adequate to steer one to
20:30its commission
20:31so
20:32still the accused may
20:35raise the same
20:38so
20:41number two
20:42even if there's sufficient provocation
20:46but if it's not
20:51if it comes from a stranger
20:54indian angal is a person
20:56claiming
20:59uh
21:00self defense
21:02and number three
21:04is
21:04final circumventing sufficient
21:06provocation
21:08coming from doctors even if there's
21:10official provocation
21:12from the accused
21:14for as long as if not
21:17immediately
21:20preceding
21:22react
21:23okay
21:24it is not immediately preceding the app
21:27we can claim still self
21:29difference
21:35so ergo
21:37okay as i mentioned a while ago
21:39a person can still claim
21:42self defense
21:46if
21:47uh when there is provocation on the
21:50following
21:51number one
21:54uh
21:55the progress provocation
21:58but not sufficient
22:02numbers secondly there is
22:04a sufficient provocation but it comes
22:07from a
22:09third person
22:11and number three if there is sufficient
22:14provocation coming from
22:17the uh
22:20person defending
22:23for as long as
22:26the accused of the person claiming
22:28self-defense
22:30for as long as it is not
22:33immediately receiving yeah okay
22:38not
22:39immediately
22:41like me being
22:43a
22:44app
22:49i know
22:50so where can you not trade self defense
22:52so here
22:55you cannot claim
22:57uh
22:58no claim
23:00of
23:02self
23:04defense
23:05under this following what we should
23:09if there is
23:11sufficient
23:13provocation
23:16from the accused
23:21which is immediately receiving the app
23:26immediately
23:29receiving
23:31the act
23:34notice
23:41immediately preceding the
23:44even if there's sufficient propagation
23:46that immediately preceding the app
23:52however no claim of self-defense if it
23:55is immediately
23:57proceeding
24:01but unsufficient provocation immediately
24:04preceding the app now no claim of
24:06self-defense
24:08if the provocation is not immediately
24:10perceiving the app there can be
24:12self-defense
24:14for example
24:31in a particular birthday party
24:35for no reason at all a slappy and we of
24:38course
24:39felt humiliated at that point
24:42but he did not want to
24:43make a revenge at that time because
24:45there's so many people around and you
24:47respect the
24:49the one who celebrated the first day
24:52so he planned on taking a refresh
24:55so on july 1 a month after
24:59a
25:00b
25:02uh
25:04made the plan to
25:05make a revenge
25:08on july 1 one month after the incident a
25:11intended
25:13stop a
25:16now
25:17fortunately for a he was able to parry
25:21the
25:21assault of b
25:23and to defend himself
25:26stop and kill me
25:30two incidents that happened
25:32june 1 and july 1.
25:34june 1
25:38but on july 1
25:40one month after it was b
25:43no who took a revenge and
25:45and tried to stop a
25:47fortunately for eight
25:49a was able to parry they uh blow and
25:52instead stop and kill b as an act of
25:55self-defense
25:58uninspired
26:00now he was prosecuted for the death of
26:04they claimed
26:06self-defense on his part
26:09is the argument uh raised by a
26:12proper or not
26:14okay assuming the two elements are
26:16present first there's a lawful attention
26:18letter to light one
26:20and a reasonable necessity because he
26:23had another instinct of
26:25self-preservation now the only thing to
26:27determine is the third element
26:31there is sufficient provocation on the
26:33part of a yes because of what happened
26:35on june 1.
26:37is it not immediately preceding the app
26:39or immediately preceding the app
26:42it is not immediately perceiving the app
26:45so therefore ergo he can claim still
26:48self-defense why it happened until what
26:51and uh
26:53there are two incidents june 1 and july
26:561.
26:57so the the sufficient provocation is not
27:00immediately preceding the app because
27:03the sufficient compensation happened a
27:05month ago
27:07now
27:08if it all happened on june 1
27:12a slap b
27:15so as an app of revenge be put alive
27:19and about to stop
27:22fortunately for a he was able to bury it
27:25and instead stop and kill me
27:29it all happened on children can a claim
27:31self-defense
27:33no
27:34no because there is official provocation
27:36on june 1. a of all of a sudden slapped
27:39b
27:41and the app of defending himself
27:43happened only just few minutes ago were
27:46it not for the slap of
27:48uh oh nothing made against me we would
27:51not have pulled up this time
27:54oh immediately
27:56so here
27:58there is one cannon claim self defense
28:29instead he'll be
28:31he cannot play
28:33self defense
28:37okay so let's go to defense of
28:40a relative
28:48defense of a relative
28:52who are the relatives being referred to
28:55here
29:25third
29:26is relatives by
29:29affinity
29:32you talk about uh relatives by affinity
29:35they are relatives because of
29:38made because of the law
29:42so
29:43when you
29:44marry
29:46immediately you will have relatives by
29:49law
29:50you will have your parents in law
29:56and these are relatives by affinity
29:59within
30:02the
30:03same
30:05degree
30:18within the same degree
30:19it refers to here
30:22your ascendants descendants
30:25and
30:26it refers also to brothers and sisters
30:34of course that includes your spouse
30:38relatives by
30:39constantinity
30:45list our relatives by
30:47blood
30:51[Music]
31:16and how do you determine
31:20in uh
31:23in line of degree
31:25you go back to your common ancestor
31:28so
31:30x
31:43and uncles
31:45okay
31:47and
31:49next would be your
31:51first
31:52passing
31:58okay
32:00between the father
32:02you have the first
32:04then your relatives the second degree is
32:09sister
32:10who is the grandparent
32:13then your antenna or aunts or uncles
32:16would be the third
32:17single degree
32:19and then the fourth she will degree is
32:21your first castle
32:23so up to that extent only
32:41i'll function the first question we will
32:43consider is this as a relative within
32:46the fifth degree right
32:49so it's nice that the the child of your
32:52first classic
32:54is not included among the enumerations
32:56anymore
32:58right
32:59so if you defended the child of your
33:02first casting it's not a real defense of
33:04a relative
33:05but it could be a defense of a stranger
33:09provided that he is not induced
33:11by revenge my resentment or evil will be
33:16okay
33:18an example let's just give an example of
33:21this
33:37defense of
33:39a relative
33:45say a
33:48to b1 at b2
33:59v2 waited for
34:01v1 we went to the uh
34:10so he went
34:11x
34:13and they had an altercation x and v y
34:17so they have an altercation and then
34:19they have it became a heated argument
34:21that
34:22you know uh b1
34:25no
34:26uh excessive one is a block by belter
34:30you actually mold x
34:33so what happened is that so b1 was on
34:35top of x
34:37x was lying helpless
34:40so hapless the shot and b1 continued to
34:43strike
34:45and steal
34:46box
35:01that
35:01he saw that v1 his mother was the one
35:05boxing x was already
35:07defenseless at that time
35:10so b2 because b1 was his brother went
35:14and stopped x which was
35:17a mortal wound
35:19on the part of x and he died
35:23prosecuted for the death of x and
35:25somebody b2
35:28it was a defense of a relative because i
35:30asop what my brother fighting
35:34question can he claim a defense of a
35:37relative
35:38no he cannot why
35:41because at the moment
35:43when he entered
35:47the premises
35:49and it's obi-wan and
35:52is there a threat
35:55a danger on the life of p1 at the time
35:58that he entered
36:00the scene
36:03now there is their peril to his life
36:06or right
36:08there's none right
36:09in fact may one should have stopped
36:11because x x which also was already
36:14defenseless at that time
36:17or if and
36:19um
36:20by doing so then you will become b2
36:23would would be
36:24a principal also
36:27for moling or injuring x
36:30because b one could only uh perform an
36:33object with one
36:35force to defend himself but since x was
36:38already
36:39a defenseless at that time he should
36:40have stopped
36:42so when b2 and 30 became also a
36:45principal
36:47it would have been different if it was x
36:50x
36:51who was on top boxing his
36:54brother v1
36:56and b1 was helpless at that time that
36:59people
37:00entered the picture
37:02and metoo
37:04stubbed and killed x
37:06then
37:07that will be
37:09uh a proper defense of a relative
37:15the potential there is parallel to one's
37:17life or leave of beyond
37:21yeah
37:22now
37:23even if it was b1
37:26though
37:27uh
37:29they had an altercation with x c b one
37:32uh
37:33uh
37:34that that
37:49x prime over v1 but when b2 entered the
37:52picture
37:53for as long as he saw that his brother
37:55was in danger
37:57then he can perfectly uh
37:59defend his brother although
38:01first law asked me to had no part 30
38:06and the same also goes with a stranger
38:10the same also goes with the stranger
38:13tandan is a stranger not induced by
38:17revenge resentment for people
38:20if he had other reasons
38:22to defend
38:23the stranger like he would want to take
38:26a revenge
38:29on the person
38:32that
38:33seemingly attack
38:35the stranger
38:37then he cannot
38:39and will not be able to waste the
38:41defense of
38:43strangers
38:44because he is induced by
38:47such revenge
38:50next
38:55let's go to uh defense i
38:58so let's
39:10okay
39:12so uh
39:14let's go to the accident what is an
39:17accent accident is when
39:19um
39:22i'm sorry avoidance of greater evil
39:24avoidance of greater evil
39:26when the evil sought to be avoided
39:29actually
39:32and um
40:00uh paragraph four speaks about
40:04avoidance of greater ego
40:08avoidance of later evil
40:12the evil thought to be avoided actually
40:15exists the evil must actually exist
40:19if the evil thought to be avoided is
40:21merely expected or anticipated or may
40:24happen
40:26in the future now then it's not
40:28applicable
40:30and the greater evil should not be
40:32brought about by the negligence or
40:35importance of the actor
40:38when the accused was not avoiding any
40:40evil
40:41he could not invoke
40:43the justifying circumstance of avoidance
40:46of a greater evil or injury
40:48the evil which brought about a greater
40:51injury must not be a result also
40:54from a violation of law
40:57by the actor
41:02see
41:03a was already
41:06a was uh on the point of
41:10annex
41:11[Music]
41:16boy
41:17g is engaged to be married
41:20a
41:23boy
41:25but on the night of their
41:28wedding
41:32she had the soul searching and the soul
41:35searching is that
41:37and um
41:38is
41:39uh whether he actually truly loves this
41:42guy
41:43oh my name see boy he spent for all the
41:46uh expenses
41:49of their marriage
41:51a church
41:54some food
41:56so catering and then some clothes and
41:58everything
42:00but on the night of the wedding cg
42:02realized that he doesn't love this guy
42:05so comes the wedding day the following
42:07day
42:09g did not appear
42:11so b was really
42:13uh fuming mad
42:15and it felt humiliated and embarrassed
42:17before the presence of
42:19their uh guests and sponsors
42:26which is slander by team
42:42yeah
42:44so what is the evil shot to be avoided
42:47in this case
42:48the evil thought to be avoided in this
42:50case is
42:52going into a
42:54love how do you characterize that
42:56marriage
43:06so that is the evil thought to be
43:07avoided
43:09okay and it is perfectly uh a proper
43:12defense
43:14but will she incur criminal liability
43:16yes because under
43:18uh
43:19article 11 okay
43:21paragraph four avoidance of twitter evil
43:24this is the only instance where there is
43:27actually a civil liability
43:32number five is fulfillment
43:34of duty or lawful exercise of one's life
43:41looking for
43:43the total provision
44:21you
44:52um
45:08okay um
45:13a person
45:15who acts in the full moon of a duty
45:18or in the lawful exercise of a right or
45:21office that's number five number six is
45:24any person who asks
45:26in obedience to an order issued by a
45:29superior
45:36um there is a uh something a lawful
45:40exercise of life or office
45:44so um what is this doctrine of self-help
45:49uh
45:49the doctrinal salvation southwest under
45:52article
45:53429 of the civil code
45:57the owner or local processor of a thing
46:00has the right to exclude any person
46:04from the
46:05enjoyment and disposal
46:07so
46:08you need to say he can use
46:10uh
46:11force as maybe reasonably necessary to
46:14repel or prevent an alcohol or
46:16threatened unlawful physical infection
46:19so
46:20i improper teemo somebody invaded that
46:22no mass of some real property you can
46:25defend
46:26you can use a reasonable force to defend
46:29your property that's a doctrine of
46:31self-help
46:33what about lawful exercise of
46:36right
46:37it is not necessary that there be a
46:39lawful aggression
46:41against the person charged with the
46:43protection of the property
46:46if there is a lawful aggression against
46:49the person
46:50not charged with the property
46:52protection and property then i
47:08number six obedience to an order issued
47:11for some lawful purpose
47:15what are the requisites the patent
47:18lawful order no full means
47:21so number one
47:23of course term accepting obedience to an
47:26order
47:27issued for some lawful purpose so
47:29therefore there should be an order
47:32an order
47:34issued by sophia that's number one
47:37number two is that the order must be for
47:40some
47:41lawful purpose
47:43number three is that the means used by
47:45the subordinate to carry outside order
47:48is
47:49low full
47:50so lawful
47:52purpose
47:53flowful means no
47:56but the person who gives the order and
47:58the person who executed it must be
48:01acting
48:02within the limits of the lord
48:07perfectly lawful or perfectly illegal
48:19the soldiers were
48:22ordered to
48:24secure building one and building two
48:27now they were able to secure building
48:29one
48:32and um they had some prisoners of war
48:36who surrendered to them surrendered
48:40the weapons no
48:42but their assignment is also to go to
48:46building two to secure the same
48:49so what must uh they do
48:52hey what was what must we do to these
48:55prisoners of war
48:57i said that we have to secure building
48:59two
49:00so they they uh
49:02the
49:03the
49:04lieutenant order
49:06is a sergeant to kill all the prisoners
49:09of war
49:11because there will be a burden to
49:13secure building building
49:17now prosecuted for the death of their
49:19prisoners
49:21the assay sergeant
49:23claimed
49:26obedience to a
49:29lawful order
49:30question
49:32okay is that proper or not depending on
49:36the answer is no
49:38why because the order is
49:41unknown full
49:43why do you say it's unknown food because
49:45every soldiers no they know
49:48that killing
49:49if their prison is not justifiable under
49:53any circumstance
49:55now well unjustified
50:07and this is guaranteed under the geneva
50:09convention for the philippines of course
50:12recognizes
50:14that same and is given
50:16a signatory to it
50:21now
50:22ergo
50:24so therefore
50:25and in this case gazette
50:27it is patently a lawful so if it is
50:29unpatently unlawful and the subordinates
50:33still followed the order then you cannot
50:35claim
50:36a
50:37uh this last paragraph as a defense as a
50:42justified circumstance
50:45so also
50:46ergo
50:47if the order is unlawful but it is not
50:50patently unknown full
50:54that can still that person can claim
50:57uh
50:58this justifying circumstance of lawful
51:01orders
51:06there's a military operation
51:09of course your duties
51:13to obey you don't have to think
51:15no foo every time
51:17or not
51:21now if it is not patently unlawful still
51:24can claim uh
51:26this one
51:28obedience to a lawful order
51:31now if it is patent you know very
51:33glaring and lawfully
51:40okay
51:41okay let's go to accepting circumstances
51:46as i mentioned in accepting
51:47circumstances
51:49there is a crime but there is no
51:52uh criminal
51:54liability
51:58let me check if i have the total
52:00permission here
52:12okay
52:13a circumstances which exempt from
52:15criminal ability
52:18the following are exempt from criminal
52:20liability
52:21an immission or insane person
52:25an invisible or
52:27a person in insanity
52:30unless the latter had acted to the
52:33elusive interval
52:35uh first question how do you distinguish
52:38investigate from insanity
52:42distinguished
52:45or insane unless the latter had happened
52:48during
52:49lucid turbine
52:51so invisibility is always accepting okay
52:55uh imbecilly an invisible person is
52:58exempt in all
53:00cases
53:02from criminal liability
53:05an imbecile is one one uh who while in
53:08advance
53:10in age has a mental development
53:12comparable to that
53:15of children between how many years two
53:18years old two seven years of age some
53:21young mental development comparables are
53:23two to seven years of age
53:26one about insanity is insanity always
53:28accepting no
53:30no
53:31because in some
53:33insane person is not so example if it
53:35can be shown that he acted
53:38during a
53:39lucid interval when
53:54insane uh person acts with intelligence
53:59and when you say absent intelligence so
54:03uh same chat that's no myth
54:08what is the uh
54:11presumption
54:12of presumption of insanity
54:15or presumption of in of sanity
54:18all persons are presumed as what sane or
54:21insane
54:25okay the presumption is of sanity
54:29the presumption is that all persons are
54:32sane
54:34of course the presumption limits of
54:35perception which can be rebutted no
54:38so
54:39when a person was insane at the time of
54:42the permission of the felony
54:45he is exempt from criminal ability
54:49when he was saying at the time of the
54:51commission
54:52of the crime
54:55but he became
54:56insane at the time of trial what is the
54:59consequence
55:01he's criminally liable but
55:03no
55:04uh
55:06nagging incention during the trial then
55:08the trial will be suspended for the
55:10moment
55:12until he regains his
55:14sanity
55:17so
55:18evidence of insanity the evidence of
55:21sanity must refer to the time preceding
55:24the app
55:25under prosecution or to the very moment
55:29of the execution of
55:36if he is insane at that time then he's
55:39accepted
55:41if he was acting on during
55:44lucid interval at the time that he
55:46executed or committed the crime then he
55:48is liable
55:50if he became only insane at the time of
55:53trial then the trial will be suspended
56:02let's go to
56:04uh
56:08a person and uh
56:10yeah under nine years of age
56:14uh this is of course you know this
56:15already that because this was already
56:18i mean that by juvenile justice and
56:21welfare
56:23if the age of the child
56:30what is is is minority
56:33an accepting circumstance it depends
56:37if the age of the child is
56:50if the child age of the child is 15 or
56:55below
56:58so this is total or absolute
57:02irresponsibility
57:08meaning to say there is no
57:11criminal liability if the age is 15 or
57:15below
57:17exactly
57:20you don't even have to distinguish
57:22whether he acted with or without
57:25first long as you can show
57:27the child's birth certificate and you
57:29can prove that p is 15 or below then
57:32total exception
57:35second if the age of the child is above
57:39and you talk about about 15 that's 15
57:42years old or below
57:44above 15 and below 18
57:47okay
57:49you will have to distinguish whether he
57:51acted with
57:53without discernment
57:58or with
58:00the sermon
58:04if you acted without this sermon that is
58:07also accepting
58:12but if he acted with this disturbance
58:15it's no longer accepting and later you
58:17will know when uh we're discussing
58:20mitigating circumstance that
58:22it is a privilege mitigating
58:24circumstance
58:36or below total
58:38exemption
58:39above 15 below 18 for as long as you can
58:42show
58:43that that use is uh
58:45conducted without discernment then he is
58:48not
58:49criminally liable
58:50but he acted with this servant it's not
58:53an exempting circumstance this becomes
58:55what a privilege
58:58mitigating circumstance
59:10yeah i hope everything
59:11is right
59:19okay
59:20number four any person who acted
59:26who while performing a lawful app with
59:29no care causes injury
59:32by mere accident without fault or
59:36uh
59:37intention of causing it this is again
59:39a circumstance uh
59:42together with uh paragraph seven
59:45when there is no civil liability so
59:48elements and generating elements a
59:50person is performing
59:52a lawful act
59:53secondly that he acted with no care
59:56thirdly he causes an injury to another
59:59by mere accident importantly it is
1:00:02without
1:00:04fault or intention
1:00:06of causing it
1:00:08so what is an accident an accident is
1:00:10something that happens
1:00:12outside
1:00:13this way of our will
1:00:17and although it comes about through some
1:00:20up of our will
1:00:22it lies beyond the bounds of humanly
1:00:25foreseeable consequences
1:00:28so if the consequences are
1:00:30plainly foreseeable it will be
1:00:32deadly yes a case of that yes
1:00:35but if it lies beyond the bounds of
1:00:38humanly foreseeable the
1:00:41things no consequences then it is an
1:00:43accident
1:00:45number five
1:00:47any person who acts under the compulsion
1:00:50of an irresistible force
1:00:52elements
1:00:53okay
1:00:55when you talk about irresistible force
1:00:58that force is what there is a physical
1:01:01force
1:01:02number one elements the number one the
1:01:05compulsion is by means of a physical
1:01:08force
1:01:09second and that physical force must be
1:01:12irresistible
1:01:13third and that physical force must
1:01:17come from a third person
1:01:23like your head butt in your head what's
1:01:26up with the firearm
1:01:31you bury this guy otherwise
1:01:34this physical force i'm being exerted in
1:01:36your
1:01:51so will we be criminally reliable no
1:01:53because now there is an irresistible
1:01:56force
1:01:58the butt of the gun
1:02:01being uh used to hit he said
1:02:04unless he uh
1:02:08uh with an order to order that
1:02:12the body of a particular crucial
1:02:15so there is there is a physical force
1:02:17being exerted
1:02:20usually when this is us you compare
1:02:23paragraphs five to six
1:02:25paragraphs pipe again it speaks about
1:02:28irresistible force
1:02:29a physical force
1:02:32but paragraph six speaks about when a
1:02:34person who acts under the impulse of an
1:02:36uncontrollable fear
1:02:39of an equal or greater injury
1:02:43so what uh are the elements of uh
1:02:46number six
1:02:49number one
1:02:50the threat which causes the fear is of a
1:02:52greater than
1:02:56which causes the fear is of an evil
1:02:59greater than or at least equal to
1:03:02that which is
1:03:04required
1:03:06that in which
1:03:07he is required to commit
1:03:10second that it promised an evil of such
1:03:13gravity and evidence that the ordinary
1:03:16man
1:03:17would have suffered to get
1:03:19the basis of duress
1:03:22duress as a valid defense should be
1:03:24based on real
1:03:26imminent or reasonable fear for one's
1:03:28life or live
1:03:30it should not be again based on remote
1:03:33fear or speculative fear or
1:03:36possible
1:03:38fear
1:03:41so uh in irresistible force the offender
1:03:43uses violence or physical force
1:03:47but here
1:03:48in a controllable fear the offender
1:03:51employs intimidation or trapped in
1:03:54compelling another telegraph
1:04:07which is irresistible this is the one
1:04:26so that's the threat of being of
1:04:28equality it's the life of this person
1:04:32where he is commanded to
1:04:33uh commit that crime to kill that person
1:04:36and
1:04:37also the life of his daughter
1:04:41it can be equal or greater injury then
1:04:44this is not a plot will not apply
1:04:50otherwise
1:04:51i will fail you in your criminal law
1:04:54review class
1:04:57so equal
1:04:59but it's between the life menu
1:05:04and
1:05:05compared with that of just a person is
1:05:08just about to fail
1:05:11he's creating a lot of you glass
1:05:13so it's not happening
1:05:15the segment the seven is when prevented
1:05:17by some
1:05:19lawful or insufferable costs
1:05:25so give me the requisites
1:05:28what are the requisites of lawful or
1:05:30inseparable outcomes
1:05:32number one
1:05:33that they act is required by law to be
1:05:36done
1:05:38there is a law that requires the
1:05:39performance of a particular act
1:05:42second is that a person fails to perform
1:05:45such a
1:05:47and third that is failure to perform
1:05:49such a was done
1:05:52due to some
1:05:53lawful or insufferable clause
1:05:59um
1:06:04a person is uh
1:06:08there is a crime committed in the
1:06:10presence of
1:06:12a police officer
1:06:16and
1:06:18this happened in the remote area
1:06:22mountains
1:06:43this is
1:06:57um
1:07:01a comedian a crime in the presence of a
1:07:04police officer
1:07:07so what is the obligation of the police
1:07:09officer
1:07:11breaking down
1:07:19against hey
1:07:21so this is our srs and under the
1:07:24law
1:07:26yes uh the duty to file a case to
1:07:29deliver the case of the proper judicial
1:07:31authority
1:07:3412 18 and 36
1:07:4012 for light felonies
1:07:43again for correctional
1:07:46and 36 for
1:07:49three
1:07:51affected
1:08:02uh
1:08:04he only
1:08:05has 12 hours
1:08:07to file a case against
1:08:11this aim
1:08:12and there's no means of trust
1:08:14transportation to go down let's say
1:08:17police officer
1:08:18so they have to go down
1:08:21and just to adjust the police station a
1:08:23lobby national 14 arms
1:08:26and then another
1:08:28uh
1:08:29what are
1:08:3015 cars
1:08:32exceeded delicious uh
1:08:34well
1:08:35so ordinarily he is liable for arbitrary
1:08:38detention
1:08:40but because he is prevented by some
1:08:42lawful or inseparable cause as this one
1:08:46but there is no means of transportation
1:08:48going down and spain is controlled
1:08:50there's no negligence
1:08:52and even formed on his part then uh
1:08:55this is as a justifying circumstance
1:09:02okay
1:09:04okay let's go to mitigating
1:09:05circumstances
1:09:07yeah
1:09:09mitigate me
1:09:14and
1:09:17let's compare this with activated
1:09:22mitigating
1:09:24uh circumstances if present would uh
1:09:28lessen the penalty
1:09:30without any aggravating
1:09:33circumstances
1:09:35in aggregating if uh present without any
1:09:37mitigating then the penalty will be
1:09:40in uh
1:09:41increase to
1:09:43its maximum
1:09:46there are two uh
1:09:48uh kinds of mitigating symbols
1:09:53which are number one ordinarily
1:09:58and secondly it's a privilege
1:10:05in aggravating
1:10:07there is
1:10:09generic
1:10:11thing second we have
1:10:28number
1:10:42special um
1:10:44complex right sorry the penalty in
1:10:46complex one is the same
1:10:48for the most serious primer seem to be
1:10:50imposing its maximum failure so it
1:10:52cannot be observed
1:10:54okay mitigating ordinary privilege
1:10:58meeting ordinary if present without any
1:11:01aggravating then the penalty will be
1:11:03reduced to its million
1:11:05period as a general rule
1:11:08meaning
1:11:12if present will reduction of
1:11:16uh
1:11:17by one or two
1:11:18degrees
1:11:20lower
1:11:24so a privilege
1:11:25meaning to say when you talk about uh
1:11:27privilege mitigating you talk about
1:11:30lowering it by 80 degree
1:11:33and ordinary if present
1:11:36you reduce it to apru
1:11:43periods
1:11:45this is not applicable to
1:11:47penalties which do not have a preview
1:11:50like what death
1:11:57so they don't have
1:11:59they do not have a period why because
1:12:02they are deemed to be
1:12:04indivisible penalties
1:12:07you talk about indivisible penalties
1:12:09volatile minimum medium and maximum
1:12:11period
1:12:12so when you talk about periods a
1:12:14reduction into its minimum period
1:12:17we talk about a case where it is
1:12:20applicable to divisible
1:12:23like
1:12:24reclusion
1:12:26temporal
1:12:2712 years
1:12:29one day to 20 years
1:12:32okay
1:12:35you divide it into three equally you
1:12:38have the medium
1:12:41and
1:12:42you have at the left is the minimum at
1:12:44the right we have capacity
1:12:46period
1:12:49so the horizontal pertains the period
1:12:54now ordinary mitigating it applies to a
1:12:57divisible penalty it's not applied when
1:12:59the penalty is death and reclusion
1:13:01perpetua
1:13:02when it's a privilege mitigating it
1:13:05applies to both
1:13:07uh divisible or indivisible penalties so
1:13:10if the penalty is a reclusion perpetua
1:13:14and a person is acting
1:13:16a minor 17 years of age acting with
1:13:19discernment
1:13:20then the penalty will be reduced by one
1:13:22degree so from recreation perpetua you
1:13:25have the culture
1:13:29okay
1:13:31so
1:13:33be able to identify
1:13:35what are the mitigating circumstances
1:13:38be able to identify what are the
1:13:41aggravating circumstances
1:13:43so the memories will add
1:13:58huh
1:14:12on a
1:14:14before a person in authority or an agent
1:14:17of a person in authority
1:14:20so it's a private person
1:14:23although he surrendered it's that
1:14:24voluntary it's not mitigating
1:14:26circumstances
1:14:31and once you identify the same as a
1:14:34mitigation
1:14:36you will also have to look whether it's
1:14:38an ordinary or privileged
1:14:40mitigating the same manner that
1:14:44in article 14 once you see
1:14:46an aggravating circumstance you do that
1:14:48obsessed
1:14:51uh automatically because
1:14:53the ones that we use for the under the
1:14:56rule of upsetting remember this
1:15:01is an ordinary mitigating us against a
1:15:05generic aggravating
1:15:16what if it is an inherent one
1:15:19no what if it is an element of the crime
1:15:22what if it's a qualifying and repeating
1:15:28chinese wizard
1:15:29homicide
1:15:31with a generic aggravating circumstance
1:15:33of murder that's wrong
1:15:35because the crime is now murdered it
1:15:38becomes
1:15:39what treachery becomes a
1:15:41qualifying circumstance
1:15:54there's an abuse of a public authority
1:15:58generic aggravating
1:16:01no in the crime of conversation
1:16:03it's not a generic aggravating it's
1:16:06inherent
1:16:07you cannot
1:16:08a public position engineering in the
1:16:11frame of conversation
1:16:13why it because the person who committed
1:16:15it is an accountable public officer
1:16:33regardless of the number of the
1:16:36mitigating or uh ordinary mitigating
1:16:40so as early as now
1:16:42i am already reminding you this case
1:16:48and aggravating circumstances
1:16:51you will not be able to answer a a a a
1:16:55question on indeterminate sentence
1:16:58law
1:16:59questions if you're not familiar or if
1:17:02you have not memorized what are the
1:17:04mitigating activating
1:17:10a person has acted under irresistible
1:17:13force
1:17:22irresistible force is what kind of
1:17:24circumstance
1:17:26it is an accepting circumstance
1:17:41admission of guilt
1:17:55um
1:18:09is a
1:18:10admission of guilt before the prosecutor
1:18:14no in the conduct of preliminary
1:18:16investigation
1:18:18or mitigating circumstance no because it
1:18:21must be
1:18:22done where
1:18:24in open court no before the prior to the
1:18:28presentation of the prosecution's
1:18:29evidence but it should be done in an
1:18:32open court and not before an admin body
1:18:35so what does it tell you
1:18:37it only goes to show that
1:18:39not only that you should be able to
1:18:41memorize but you should be able to know
1:18:42the elements as well
1:18:45and after knowing that identifying that
1:18:47it's a mitigating circumstance then
1:18:50uh you have to classify it whether it's
1:18:52an
1:19:06and you're unable to
1:19:09simply
1:19:10just
1:19:12identify what are those ordinary
1:19:14mitigating circle sensors
1:19:20let's go to uh
1:19:24mitigate mitigating
1:19:30the following are mitigating
1:19:31circumstances
1:19:34okay when all the elements necessary to
1:19:36justify the app
1:19:39uh
1:19:41or to exempt from criminal ability are
1:19:44not attacked
1:19:45so let's go for example
1:19:50on
1:19:52this one
1:19:55all the elvis stresses are not
1:19:58except what is the rule okay
1:20:01so
1:20:02the
1:20:03self-defense
1:20:07url low for the direction
1:20:10reasonable necessity of the means to
1:20:12prevent or repel the same third is lack
1:20:14of sufficient prolongation
1:20:17okay uh
1:20:20assuming
1:20:23assuming that the ones who are
1:20:25present
1:20:27is unlocked a lawful aggression
1:20:36then what is the consequence this is
1:20:39an ordinary mutated
1:20:47if a local aggression is present
1:20:49the second and the third are not present
1:20:52then
1:20:52ordinarily
1:20:55if a lawful aggression is present
1:20:58vision bullet says it is present the
1:21:00third one is not present
1:21:02then it's a privilege to begin
1:21:07it's not simply
1:21:08a mitigating but it's a privilege
1:21:11if a lawful aggression is present
1:21:15second is not present law of sufficient
1:21:18provocation is present
1:21:20in other words the first and the third
1:21:21elements are present it's a privilege
1:21:24mitigating service
1:21:27okay
1:21:28if a no unknown follow glacier is
1:21:31present
1:21:32but two entries are present then
1:21:35it has to vary because why because a
1:21:37lawful aggression is an indispensable
1:21:40requisite
1:21:48okay
1:21:49now if these three are present
1:21:52then it's no longer a mitigating
1:21:54circumstance
1:21:56it's
1:21:57actually a justifying circumstance of
1:21:59self-defense if all the elements are
1:22:01present
1:22:04but
1:22:06if the majority are present then
1:22:10it's uh
1:22:11it's a privilege with the gates
1:22:15okay
1:22:31okay
1:22:35um
1:22:40let's go to
1:22:42kanina's age of a child which is uh
1:22:46above 15 below 18 happening with dessert
1:22:50which is
1:22:54if the age of the child is above 15
1:22:56and below 18 then you will have to
1:22:58distinguish whether you acted with or
1:23:00without the survey
1:23:02if you acted without discernment then
1:23:05it's an accepting circumstance if i
1:23:07acted
1:23:08with discernment then it is not an exam
1:23:10thing but it is a
1:23:12privilege mitigating
1:23:14uh
1:23:16circumstance
1:23:18so when you talk about the concept of uh
1:23:21acting with discernment what does it
1:23:23mean
1:23:24acting with disturbance simply means
1:23:26that whether the person
1:23:29uh
1:23:31know the consequences of islam he knows
1:23:34what is right and what is wrong
1:23:40then he acted with this survey in one
1:23:42case
1:23:43supreme court
1:23:45is when you
1:23:47waited for the parents of the victim to
1:23:50come out of their house and then when
1:23:52they when they left the house then
1:23:54that's the time that they committed the
1:23:56crime then
1:23:57it only shows that
1:23:58the child had acted with the servant and
1:24:01so therefore he is criminally reliable
1:24:03although it constitutes us
1:24:05as a privilege
1:24:08mitigating circumstance
1:24:10okay
1:24:14uh there's also in complete justifying
1:24:16circumstance the man of performance of
1:24:18duty
1:24:21uh
1:24:22there are two deposits that must be
1:24:24present in order that
1:24:26uh
1:24:27circumstance under article 11 number
1:24:29five may be taken as a justifying
1:24:32one china
1:24:34that you acted in the performance of a
1:24:36duty
1:24:37or in the lawful exercise of fright or
1:24:39official
1:24:41uh talk to themselves
1:24:43and then
1:24:44the second is the injury
1:24:46cause or offense committed
1:24:50be the necessary consequence of the new
1:24:53performance of the duty or the global
1:24:55exercise of this right
1:25:07as a
1:25:09mitigating circumstance
1:25:16against one
1:25:19okay third is
1:25:21that sufficient
1:25:23and then a provocation or earthling
1:25:27or
1:25:32that offender
1:25:35third paragraph that offender had no
1:25:37intention to commit seoul
1:25:42so the circumstance can be taken into
1:25:44account only when the facts
1:25:46proven
1:25:47show that there is a notable and evident
1:25:50disproportion
1:25:52between the means employed to execute
1:25:56the criminal act and its consequences
1:25:59of course when we talk about uh
1:26:01intention
1:26:03uh
1:26:04it is
1:26:05an internal state of intention and it
1:26:08can be
1:26:09judged only by
1:26:11the
1:26:12manifestation of the external apps
1:26:15so the intention as an internal app is
1:26:18judged not only with the proportion of
1:26:20the means employed by him
1:26:22so the evil produced by his app but also
1:26:25by the fact that tableau was or was not
1:26:28a
1:26:29at a vital
1:26:31part of the body
1:26:34number three the number four what is
1:26:36provocation
1:26:41that sufficient provocation or threat
1:26:45on the part of the offended party
1:26:46immediately proceeding yeah so what are
1:26:49the requisites
1:26:52uh playful and if it's a video
1:26:53provocation
1:26:55it is understood
1:26:57any
1:26:58unjust or improper panda unjust or
1:27:01improper conduct or an act of the
1:27:04offended party
1:27:05capable of exciting
1:27:08inciting or irritating anyone
1:27:12so provocation
1:27:14that the provocation must be sufficient
1:27:17that it was originated from the offended
1:27:19party
1:27:20and the third that
1:27:22provocation must be immediate
1:27:25to the commission of the client by the
1:27:27person who is proposed
1:27:45with no apparent reason
1:27:47slap b and b pull down a ballista and
1:27:50stab a okay
1:27:52so he is criminally liable
1:27:55but
1:27:57he can uh claim sufficient provocation
1:28:01as a matter of privilege of mitigating
1:28:04circumstances
1:28:05so there was a
1:28:07sufficient provocations in impulsion
1:28:09second it originated from
1:28:11the offended party
1:28:15and that the provocation must be
1:28:17immediate
1:28:21i mean happened
1:28:23just before
1:28:24uh
1:28:26yeah
1:28:28after he was immediately
1:28:30slapped in his face
1:28:35number four immediately uh
1:28:40immediate vindication
1:28:42immediate authentication
1:28:47um
1:28:50there must
1:28:52there must be an immediate investigation
1:28:54of a grave offense
1:28:56to the one committing the felony
1:28:59his spouse ascendants descendants
1:29:01legitimate natural or adopted brothers
1:29:03or sisters
1:29:04or relatives by affinity within the same
1:29:08degrees so how do you compare usually
1:29:12how do you compare
1:29:13four and five
1:29:15but let us give first the requisites of
1:29:18immediate vindication
1:29:22you don't know my grape offense so there
1:29:24must be a green offense
1:29:26performed or done to the one either to
1:29:28the one committing the felony or his
1:29:31relatives
1:29:32who are his spouse against senators
1:29:35and etc
1:29:37notice under this uh immediate
1:29:40indication
1:29:41it limits the relatives only by affinity
1:29:44within the same degree so what are
1:29:47relatives by constantinity within the
1:29:50fourth say will degree
1:29:51in the listeners a self-defense launcher
1:29:54and apply
1:29:56okay second requisite is that the felony
1:29:59is committed in with the investigation
1:30:01of such great effects
1:30:04so uh a lapse of time is allowed
1:30:08between the vindication
1:30:11and the doing of the grave effects
1:30:13so between the grave offense and the
1:30:15immediate vindication there could be a
1:30:17grip
1:30:18there could be a lapse of time
1:30:21so how do you compare immediate
1:30:23vindication from uh sufficient
1:30:26provocation
1:30:27in the case of provocation it is made
1:30:30directly only to the person committing
1:30:32the felony
1:30:37vindication
1:30:39very clear the engraved offense may be
1:30:41committed against the offender's
1:30:43relatives that only agrees himself
1:30:46but also against its relatives
1:30:49you know enumeration relatives are not
1:30:51included
1:30:52in uh
1:30:54sufficient provocation
1:30:57okay
1:30:59and of course there is as i mentioned
1:31:02there it must be a grave offense to the
1:31:04offender
1:31:06or to his relatives
1:31:09now that rape offense kelangan bayern
1:31:12should it be a felony no not necessarily
1:31:16that the great offense did not
1:31:18necessarily be a a crime
1:31:23so our
1:31:25important
1:31:26distinction is that
1:31:28the sufficient provocation or threat
1:31:30immediately preceded the app
1:31:32meaning to say that there is no interval
1:31:34of time between the provocation and the
1:31:37commission of the crime
1:31:39in while in immediate vindication there
1:31:41is proximity time or lapse of time or
1:31:45interval of time
1:31:47between those agreed offense at young's
1:31:51commission of the crime
1:31:56so
1:32:07when the insult was made again as i
1:32:10mentioned it does not necessarily
1:32:13and that that one great offense is a
1:32:15failure
1:32:16insult but insult that's that will be uh
1:32:21considered as a great offense in one
1:32:23case
1:32:45it was considered
1:32:47this case
1:32:49as a great offense and so therefore
1:32:52chicken a bill of immediate
1:32:55authentication as a mitigating
1:32:57circumstance
1:33:00number six
1:33:02number section five
1:33:04passion and obfuscation
1:33:07fashion and obfuscation
1:33:09the the person
1:33:11having acted upon an impulse so powerful
1:33:14as naturally to have produced passion in
1:33:16the frustration
1:33:18so this paragraph requires that number
1:33:20one that use acted under an impulse
1:33:24number two the impulse must be so
1:33:26powerful as
1:33:28that
1:33:29it naturally produces passion or obesity
1:33:34so requisites there must be an app both
1:33:37unlawful and sufficient to produ to
1:33:40produce such a condition of mind
1:33:44and that set up which produced the past
1:33:47the obfuscation was not far removed
1:33:50from the commission of the crime by a
1:33:53considerable length of time
1:33:56during which the perfect perpetrator
1:33:58might recover his
1:34:01normal equanimity
1:34:04so meaning to say
1:34:07no passion of escalation after 24 hours
1:34:10no
1:34:11uh the defense must prove that the act
1:34:13which produced passion or forcation took
1:34:15place
1:34:16at a time not far removed from the
1:34:18commission of the pride
1:34:21and it must be the result of a sudden
1:34:24impulse of natural uncontrollable fury
1:34:29legends
1:34:58it must arise from a lawful sentiment
1:35:01it must arise from a long sentence
1:35:25foreign
1:35:40as a
1:35:42passion of a special
1:35:44a question can you raise that
1:35:46no you cannot because it must arise from
1:35:49my life
1:36:07how do you
1:36:08distinguish passion obfuscation from
1:36:10irresistible force
1:36:19accepting a passion
1:36:21is a mitigating circumstance
1:36:24an irresistible force young accepting
1:36:31compassionate false creation cannot give
1:36:33rise to an irresistible force because a
1:36:35irresistible force requires a physical
1:36:38force
1:36:40and passion of stern fashion infusion is
1:36:43in the offender himself
1:36:44young irresistible force must come from
1:36:47a third person
1:36:49okay
1:36:50and passion of frustration mice arise
1:36:52from lawful sentiments whereas
1:36:55irresistible force is
1:36:57unknowful
1:37:01number six offender had voluntarily
1:37:03surrendered to a person in an authority
1:37:06or agent or confession of guilt before
1:37:10the court
1:37:12okay let's go to uh
1:37:14voluntary surrender
1:37:16number one the offender had not been
1:37:18actually
1:37:24secondly
1:37:25he must be a
1:37:27surrender we must surrender to a person
1:37:30in authority or
1:37:32to the latter's agent or to the agent of
1:37:35a person in authority
1:37:37that the surrender must be voluntary
1:37:42in authority is one directly invested
1:37:44with jurisdiction
1:37:46and agents of a person in authority are
1:37:49those uh
1:37:50charged with the maintenance of public
1:37:52order or protection and security
1:37:55of life and property
1:38:00oxygen having
1:38:06to submit himself unconditionally to the
1:38:09authorities
1:38:13and the purpose is to of course to
1:38:16save
1:38:18the trouble and expenses
1:38:21necessary necessarily included in his
1:38:24search and culture
1:38:29it will not actually save trouble and
1:38:30expense
1:38:32on the part of the government this then
1:38:34this will not be considered
1:38:38voluntary confession of guilt
1:38:40spontaneous and confession of guilt
1:38:42again as i mentioned before secondly the
1:38:45confession of guilt was made in open
1:38:47court
1:38:48that is before the competent court that
1:38:51is trying the case
1:38:53and that the confession third mass of
1:38:56git was paid prior to
1:38:59the presentation of the evidence for the
1:39:01prosecution
1:39:02angle if the plea of guilt is made on
1:39:05appeal then it is not mitigating
1:39:09is the plea of guilt as i mentioned
1:39:11earlier and the preliminary
1:39:12investigation is not only of guilt at
1:39:15all
1:39:16okay
1:39:20what about extra judicial confession the
1:39:22extrajudicial conference confession made
1:39:25by docus is not voluntary confession
1:39:28as contemplated in nervous penalty
1:39:31because that confession was made outside
1:39:33of the world
1:39:35again as i mentioned a confession of
1:39:37guilt must be made in
1:39:39open court
1:39:48let's go to physical defect
1:39:51left down blind
1:39:58physical defect must restrict his means
1:40:00of action defense or communication
1:40:05big physical defect referred to in this
1:40:07paragraph is
1:40:10is such as being armless or crippled or
1:40:15which restricts his
1:40:17actions defense or communication
1:40:21whereby his means to act defend himself
1:40:23or communicate
1:40:25with his fellow beings are limited
1:40:30but this physical defect is not
1:40:32mitigating in the crime of rape
1:40:35or times against chastity
1:40:37or in atlanta or in glance against
1:40:39property
1:40:42illness
1:40:45such illness
1:40:48of the offender as would diminish the
1:40:50exercise of his willpower
1:40:53without however depriving him of his
1:40:56consciousness of his app
1:40:58okay
1:40:59so the elements is that the illness of
1:41:01the offender must diminish
1:41:04the exercise of his willpower
1:41:06but it should not deprive the offender
1:41:08of the consciousness of his acts why
1:41:11because if he is deprived of the
1:41:13consciousness
1:41:14of his acts then that is already an
1:41:17acceptance an accepting circumstance
1:41:20when the offender completely lost the
1:41:22exercise of his willpower
1:41:26it is deemed as an exempting
1:41:28circumstances
1:41:32then the last one
1:41:35uh
1:41:36analogous circumstances
1:41:39finally any other circumstance of a
1:41:42similar nature and analogous to those
1:41:44above match
1:41:46so
1:41:48over 60 years old
1:41:50with failing sight
1:41:52similar to over 70 years of age
1:41:55mentioned in paragraph 2
1:41:57article 13.
1:41:58okay
1:42:23also a a person who killed his debtor
1:42:25who tried to escape and refuse to pay
1:42:27his debt
1:42:29is entitled to this mitigating
1:42:31circumstance
1:42:32similar to that of passion and
1:42:34association
1:42:36or impulse of jealousy
1:42:38of
1:42:39of jealous
1:42:40feelings similar to that of passion and
1:42:44obesity
1:42:49okay
1:42:52voluntary restitution of stolen property
1:42:56may be deemed
1:42:58similar to that or analogous to that of
1:43:01voluntary surrender mentioned in
1:43:03paragraph 7.
1:43:06extreme poverty and necessity similar to
1:43:09incomplete justified justification based
1:43:12on
1:43:13state of necessity
1:43:20the condition of running amok is not
1:43:24mitigating
1:43:27okay
1:43:29so yeah
1:43:33we will have a break

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of CRIMINAL LAW 1: ARTS. 11-13 by Dean Festin Law, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 8,632 words across 2,020 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.