On the General Principle that “Without intent, there can be no crime”

First maxim under this principle: Cogitationis Poenam Nemo Emeret or “No man may be punished for his
thoughts”

Under Article 3 of the Revised Penal Code, to be considered as a felony there must be an act or omission; a mere
imagination no matter how wrong does not amount to a felony.

In conclusion, mere thoughts without action is not punishable by our laws.

Second maxim under this principle Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea or “The act itself does not make a
man guilty unless his intention were so”

Generally speaking, for a person to be found guilty of criminal offense, he or she must have committed an illegal
act (actus reus) and had required “state of mind” (mens rea) for the criminal offence. The Court must prove
elements of the offence, the actus reus and mens rea, beyond reasonable doubt. Actus reus is Latin for “guilty
act”. It is common sense that a person must be found to have done illegal act before she or he can be convicted
of the crime. The guilty act can be something a person does or something a person omits to do in other words
something a person is required to do but fails to do.

Mens rea is Latin for “guilty mind”

There are different types of mental stage for different criminal offences. They include intention, willful blindness,
and criminal negligence, among others.

In Intention- a person intends to commit actus reus (guilty act”)

For example. A walks up to B and punches him in the face. B’s nose is broken by A’s punch. The act is deliberate.

In Willful blindness= a person knows of the possibility of illegality but chooses not to ask questions or investigate
the situation

For example. A and B are walking down the street when they came across some DVD stalls. A notices that the
DVD’s are a lot cheaper than in the store. A wonders if they might be illegal copies. A decides that she’d rather
not know either way and proceeds to buy.

In Criminal negligence- while this person did not realize the consequence of his or her actions, a reasonable
person should have

E.g. A runs a daycare centre. A lets the children run all over the centre. Several times children had fallen down
the stairs. It never occurs to A to buy a proper gate to keep the children away from the stairs. One day, B falls
down the stairs and seriously injured.

Third maxim under this principle Actus Me Invito Factus Non Est Meus Actus or “An act done by me against my
will is not my act”

It conveys the notion of general intent (as opposed to specific intent). “Intentionally means that the defendant
acted voluntarily, on purpose and not by mistake or accident”

Under Art. 12 of the revised penal code list the circumstances exempt from criminal liability because of
defendant did not act voluntarily, not on purpose and it is by mistake or accidents.
One example is for insane or imbecile When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act which the
law defines as a felony he or she is exempt from criminal liability because of complete absence of intelligence,
and element of voluntariness.

On the Principle that “Ignorance of the Law excuses no one but Ignorance of fact may be an excuse”

First maxim under this principle, Ignorantia Legis Neminem Excusat “Ignorance of the law excuse no one”

Imagine how problematic our legal system would be if it were possible for any person to relieve themselves
from punishment or liability by claiming that they are not aware about a law they have broken. Thus, Art 3. Of
the Civil Code prevents this possibility through the following rule: Ignorance of the law excuses no one from
compliance therewith, This presumption in Philippine law is based on convenience, public policy and necessity.
However, this rule only refers to the existence of a law, not to mistakes regarding its application or
interpretation.

In other words, every person in Philippine jurisdiction is presumed to know that a law regarding a particular
conduct exists, even though in reality, he has not read or even heard about the law before. If a person violates a
law, even though in truth he does not know that such law exists, such ignorance of its existence is not a valid
defense and will not excuse him from the legal consequence of the law’s violation. However, if a person made a
mistake as to its interpretation or application, such ignorance constitutes an excuse and is a valid legal defense.

Second maxim under this principle, Ignorantia Facto Excusat or “Ignorance or mistake in point of fact is an
excuse”

Article 3 of the Civil Code however does not apply to the following:

1. Ignorance of foreign law is not ignorance of law but merely an ignorance of fact. Ignorance or mistake of fact
provides defense to a criminal charge when the mistaken view of the fact is inconsistent with the required
criminal purpose. For example, one who takes and carries away goods of another while believing them to be his
own is not guilty of larceny or theft of personal property since he lacks the intent to steal.

2. In Tuvera vs Tanada, a law should first be published before it becomes effective.

Under Art. 2 of the civil code, Laws shall take effect 15 days ff. the completion of their publication in the Official
Gazette, unless it is otherwise provided.

Publication is part of procedural due process. The publication is imperative to the validity of laws, presidential
decrees and executive orders, administrative rules and regulations, and is an indispensable part of due process.

Indispensable-absolutely necessary.