Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JOHN PHILIP GUEVARRA v. IGNACIO ALMODOVAR

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 151258 2012-02-01	ARTEMIO VILLAREAL v. PEOPLE SERENO, J.
The term "dolo" or "malice" is a complex idea involving the elements of freedom, intelligence, and intent.[114] The first element, freedom, refers to an act done with deliberation and with power to choose between two things.[115] The second element, 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.[116] The last element, intent, involves an aim or a determination to do a certain act.[117]
	GR No. 151085 2008-08-20	JOEMAR ORTEGA v. PEOPLE NACHURA, J.
However, for one who acts by virtue of any of the exempting circumstances, although he commits a crime, by the complete absence of any of the conditions which constitute free will or voluntariness of the act, no criminal liability arises.[48] Therefore, while there is a crime committed, no criminal liability attaches. Thus, in Guevarra v. Almodovar,[49] we held:[I]t is worthy to note the basic reason behind the enactment of the exempting circumstances embodied in Article 12 of the RPC; the complete absence of intelligence, freedom of action, or intent, or on the absence of negligence on the part of the accused. In expounding on intelligence as the second element of dolus, Albert has stated:
	GR NO. 166040 2006-04-26	NIEL F. LLAVE v. PEOPLE CALLEJO, SR., J.
Article 12, paragraph 3 of the Revised Penal Code provides that a person over nine years of age and under fifteen is exempt from criminal liability, unless he acted with discernment. The basic reason behind the exempting circumstance is complete absence of intelligence, freedom of action of the offender which is an essential element of a felony either by dolus or by culpa. Intelligence is the power necessary to determine the morality of human acts to distinguish a licit from an illicit act.[84] On the other hand, discernment is the mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong. The prosecution is burdened to prove that the accused acted with discernment by evidence of physical appearance, attitude or deportment not only before and during the commission of the act, but also after and during the trial.[85] The surrounding circumstances must demonstrate that the minor knew what he was doing and that it was wrong. Such circumstance includes the gruesome nature of the crime and the minor's cunning and shrewdness.