Name: Angelo M.

Macalong
Name of instructor: Sir, Rey Romerosa
Date: March 11, 2022

ASSIGNMENT IN CRIMINAL LAW 1

1. What is the difference between continued crime and continuing crime?

Answer: • Continued crimes – refers to a single crime consisting of a series of acts but
all arising from one criminal resolution. Although there is a series of acts, there is only
one crime committed, so only one penalty shall be imposed.
A “continued crime” is one where the offender performs a series of acts violating the
same penal provision committed at the same place and about the same time for the
same criminal purpose, regardless of a series of acts done, it is regarded in law as one.

When the actor, there being unity of purpose and of right violated, commits diverse acts,
each of which, although of a delictual character, merely constitutes a partial delict, such
occurrence of delictual acts is called “delicto continuado”.” (Gamboa vs. Court of
Appeals, 68 SCRA 314)

On the other hand, Continuing Crime where the prescriptive period will start to run only
at the termination of the intended result;

2. Is the mistake of fact an absolutory cause? Explain briefly.

Answer: Yes, . The offender is acting without criminal intent. So in the mistake of fact, it
is necessary that had the facts been true as the accused believed them to be, this act is
justified. If not, there is criminal liability, because there is no mistake of fact anymore.
The offender must believe he is performing a lawful act.

（a.)What justifies the killing of a supposed unlawful aggressor in self-defense?

Answer: Unlawful aggression in self-defense, to be justifying, must exist at the time the
defense is made. It may no longer exist if the aggressor runs away after the attack or he
has manifested a refusal to continue fighting. If the person attacked allowed some time
to elapse after he suffered the injury before hitting back, his act of hitting back would not
constitute self- defense, but revenge.

（b.) Is there an unlawful aggression if there was an agreement to the fight between the
supposed unlawful aggressor and the one that invoked self-defense if the challenge to
fight has been accepted?
Answer: Yes, The unlawful aggression must come from the person who was attacked
by the accused. It follows that when the source of the unlawful aggression is not known,
then unlawful aggression cannot be considered present in the resolution of the case.
This observation is true only in self-defense. Obviously, it cannot apply to the defense of
relatives and strangers.
● A light push on the head with the hand is not unlawful aggression, but a slap on
the face is, because his dignity is in danger.
● A police officer exceeding his authority may become an unlawful aggressor.
● The nature, character, location, and extent of the wound may belie claim of
self-defense.
When the aggressors run away, the one making a defense has no more right to invoke
self-defense. (People vs. Alconga)

4. （a.) Is there civil liability in justifying circumstances?

Answer: There is no civil liability in justifying circumstances EXCEPT: par 4 of Art
11, the one benefited by the act is civilly liable.
civil liability in case of state of necessity. Those who benefited by the act and court shall
determine the proportionate amount for which each shall be liable. If the government or
majority of the inhabitants are liable, such will be determined by special laws or
regulations. On the other Hand, The person for whose benefit the harm has been
prevented shall be civilly liable in proportion to the benefit which may have been
received. This is the only justifying circumstance which provides for the payment of civil
indemnity. Under the other justifying circumstances, no civil liability attaches. The courts
shall determine, in their sound discretion, the proportionate amount for which one is
liable.

（b.) What is the exception?

Answer: 1) The circumstance affects the act, not the actor;
(2) The act complained of is considered to have been done within the bounds of law;
hence, it is legitimate and lawful in the eyes of the law;
(3) Since the act is considered lawful, there is no crime, and because there is no crime,
there is no criminal;
(4) Since there is no crime or criminal, there is no criminal liability as well as civil liability.

（c.) If there is a civil liability as an exception, who must be liable civilly?

Answer: Since there is a crime committed but there is no criminal, there is civil liability
for the wrong done. But there is no criminal liability. However, in paragraphs 4 and 7 of
Article 12, there is neither criminal nor civil liability.
5. What are mitigating circumstances?
Answer:
• Definition – Those circumstance which reduce the penalty of a crime
• Effect – Reduces the penalty of the crime but does not erase criminal liability nor
change the nature of the crime

Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the requisites necessary to justify
the act or to exempt from criminal liability in the respective cases are not attendant.

Mitigating Circumstances only when the same arise from lawful sentiments (not
Mitigating Circumstance when done in the spirit of revenge or lawlessness)