LEGAL DOCTRINES, PRINCIPLES, AND

MAXIMS

INTRODUCTION

PHILIPPINE LEGAL DOCTRINES

Doctrine of absolute privilege. Doctrine that protects persons from claims alleging
defamation where the alleged defamatory statements were made by members of
legislative assemblies while on the floor of the assembly or communications made in the
context of judicial proceedings, as part of a trial.

Doctrine of absorption of common crimes. Also called Hernandez doctrine. The rule
enunciated in People v. Hernandez [99 Phil. Rep 515 (1956)] that the ingredients of a
crime form part and parcel thereof, and hence, are absorbed by the same and cannot be
punished either separately therefrom or by the application of Art. 48 of the Rev. Penal
Code. [Enrile v. Amin, GR 93335, Sept. 13, 1990]. It held that the crime of rebellion
under the Rev. Penal Code of the Phils. is charged as a single offense, and that it cannot
be made into a complex crime.

Doctrine of actio personalis moritur cum persona. Lat. [The doctrine that] personal
action terminates or dies with the person. [Santos v. Sec. of Labor, L-21624, 27 Feb.
1968].

Doctrine of adherence of jurisdiction. Rem. Law. 1. The principle that once a court has
acquired jurisdiction, that jurisdiction continues until the court has done all that it can
do in the exercise of that jurisdiction. 2. The doctrine holding that [e]ven the finality of
the judgment does not totally deprive the court of jurisdiction over the case. What the
court loses is the power to amend, modify or alter the judgment. Even after the
judgment has become final, the court retains jurisdiction to enforce and execute it
[Echegaray v. Sec. of Justice, 301 SCRA 96]. Also called Doctrine of continuity of
jurisdiction.
Doctrine of last clear chance. Also known as the Doctrine of discovered peril or the
Humanitarian doctrine. A doctrine in the law of torts which states that the contributory
negligence of the party injured will not defeat the claim for damages if it is shown that
the defendant might, by the exercise of reasonable care and prudence, have avoided the
consequences of the negligence of the injured party. In such cases, the person who had
the last clear chance to avoid the mishap is considered in law solely responsible for the
consequences thereof. [Ong v. Metropolitan Water District, 104 Phil. 405 (1958)]. See
Last clear chance doctrine.

Doctrine of separation of church and state. The doctrine enshrined in Sec. 6, Art. II of
the 1987 Phil. Consti. which provides that: “The separation of Church and State shall be
inviolable.” The idea advocated by this principle is to delineate the boundaries between
the two institutions and thus avoid encroachments by one against the other because of a
misunderstanding of the limits of their respective exclusive jurisdictions. [Austria v.
NLRC, GR 124382, 16 August 1999].

General Principles in Criminal Law

As explained by legal scholar Jerome Hall (1960) in his influential treatise General
Principles of Criminal Law, the Criminal Law can be analyzed or studied at different
levels of abstraction. At the lowest, most detailed level are the specific rules defining
individual crimes, such as murder, manslaughter, burglary, robbery, larceny, and the
like. A step removed from the specific rules, at a higher level of abstraction, are the
criminal law doctrines. Examples of recognizable doctrines within the criminal law
include insanity, duress, necessity, excuse, and attempts. Doctrines are conceptually
broader than rules and sometimes override their application; for example, an “insane”
person or who acts under “duress” may be excused from criminal liability even if his or
her conduct otherwise satisfies the rule defining burglary, arson, or another crime.

At the highest level are the general principles of the criminal law, which combine to
provide a theoretical framework explaining what is common to crime and which
Professor Hall describes as the “ultimate norms of the penal law”.
Burden of proof

The prosecution had the task of proving the guilt of the person who is charged with an
offence (the defendant). For the defendant to be found guilty of an offence, it must be
proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is not up to the defendant to establish her or his
innocence.

This rule applies in all criminal trials, although sometimes is up to the defendant to give
evidence of a certain point in the defence case. For example, in those offences which
prohibit a certain act 'without reasonable excuse', the defendant must explain her or his
excuse, although it is up to the prosecution to prove that the excuse is not reasonable.

In some cases, the burden of proof of a particular defence (such as insanity) may be on
the defendant, but then the defence need only be proved on the balance of probabilities,
and not beyond a reasonable doubt, as the prosecution must do.

Right to remain silent

Generally, a person is not required to answer police questions. However, there are some
exceptions to this rule. The main exception is that a police officer can request the name
and address of a person found committing an offence, or who the police officer has
reasonable cause to suspect has committed, or is about to commit, an offence or of a
person who may be able to assist in the investigation of an offence or suspected offence
[Summary Offences Act 1953 s 74A]. In these circumstances a person who refuses to
give her or his name and address, or who gives a false name and address, commits an
offence. Drivers of motor vehicles are also required to give their name and address, and
that of the owner of the car, as well as some questions in relations to firearms see: arrest
and questioning.
Double jeopardy

The principle of criminal law called the double jeopardy rule is that no person should be
punished more than once for the same offence and that no person ought to be placed
twice in jeopardy (at risk) of being convicted. This means that a person who has been
charged, tried and acquitted cannot be charged again for the same matter. However,
often a new trial is ordered where for example, an appeal court overturns a conviction or
where the first trial resulted in a hung jury or a mistrial.

Changes to the Criminal Procedure Act 1921 (SA) (ss 141- 148) mean that double
jeopardy no longer applies for serious offences such as murder, manslaughter and
aggravated rape, provided certain circumstances are met. There are two situations in
which a person can be re-tried for an offence for which they have previously been
acquitted:

> Where fresh and compelling evidence not provided at the original trial is produced.
This evidence must be reliable and substantial [Criminal Procedure Act 1921 (SA) s 147];
or

> Where the acquittal is shown to be a ‘tainted acquittal’. A tainted acquittal occurs
where a person was not convicted of an offence because an administration of justice
offence was committed (offences of perjury, fabrication or concealment of evidence,
bribery, witness or juror intimidation or attempting to pervert the course of justice).
Charges can be laid against the acquitted person if it is more likely than not that they
would have been convicted but for the administration of justice offence [s 148].
LEGAL MAXIMS
1. Ab Initio – From the beginning.

2. Actionable per se – The very act is punishable, and no proof of damage is required.

3. Actio personalis moritur cum persona – A personal right of action dies with the
person. In other sense, if he dies, the right to sue is gone.

4. Actori incumbit onus probandi – The burden of proof is on the plaintiff. Read under
section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act.

5. Actus me invito factus non est mens actus – An act done by me against my will is not
my act. Read with section 94 of IPC.

6. Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea – An act does not make one guilty unless it is
accompanied by a guilty mind.

7. Actus reus – Guilty act.

8. Actus Reus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea – Conviction of a crime requires proof
of a criminal act and intent. Or an act does not make a defendant guilty without a guilty
mind. Or an act does not constitute guilt unless done with a guilty intention.

9. Ad hoc – For the particular end or case at hand.

10. Alibi – At another place, elsewhere.

11. Amicus Curiae – A friend of court or member of the Bar who is appointed to assist the
court.

12. Ante Litem Motam – Before suit brought; before controversy instituted, or spoken
before a lawsuit is brought.

13. Assentio mentium – The meeting of minds, i.e. mutual assents.

14. Audi alteram partem – No man shall be condemned unheard.

15. Bona fide – In good faith.

16. Bona vacantia – Goods without an owner.

17. Boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem – It is the part of a good judge to enlarge his
jurisdiction, i.e. remedial authority.
18. Caveat – A caution registered with the public court to indicate to the officials that
they are not to act in the matter mentioned in the caveat without first giving notice to
the caveator.

19. Caveat actor – Let the doer beware.

20. Caveat emptor – Let the buyer beware.

21. Caveat venditor -Let the seller beware.

22. Certiorari – A writ by which orders passed by an inferior court is quashed.

23. Communis hostis omnium – They are common enemies of all. The common enemy
of everyone. Read with section 4(2) of IPC.

24. Corpus – Body.

25. Corpus delicti – The facts and circumstances constituting a crime and Concrete
evidence of a crime, such as a corpse (dead body).

Also, it refers to the principle that ‘a crime must be proved to have occurred before a
person can be convicted of committing that crime.’ (This definition is mostly used in
Western Law.)

26. Crimen trahit personam – The crime carries the person. Read with section 2 of IPC.
In other words, it means wherever a person goes, and if he commits a crime there, then
he will be covered by the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, that is, Interterritorial
Jurisdiction.

27. Damnum sine injuria – Damages without injuries.

28. De facto – In fact.

29. De jure – By law.

30. De minimis – About minimal things.31. De Minimis Non Curat Lex – The law does
not govern trifles (unimportant things). Or law is not concerned with small or
insignificant things/matters. Read with section 95 of IPC. Or A common law principle
whereby judges will not sit in judgment of extremely minor transgressions (offence,
wrongdoings) of the law.

32. De novo – To make something anew.

33. Dictum – Statement of law made by the judge in the course of the decision but not
necessary to the decision itself.
34. Doli capax – Capable of forming necessary intent to commit a crime. Read with
section 83 of IPC.

35. Doli incapax – Incapable of crime. Or incapable of forming the intent to commit a
crime. Read with section 82 of IPC.

36. Detinue – Tort of wrongfully holding goods that belong to someone else.

37. Donatio mortis causa – Gift because of death. Or a future gift given in expectation of
the donor’s imminent death and only delivered upon the donor’s death.

38. Estoppel – Prevented from denying.

39. Ex gratia – As favour.

40. Ex officio – Because of an office held.

41. Ex parte – Proceedings in the absence of the other party.

42. Ex post facto – Out of the aftermath. Or after the fact.

It is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that
were committed or relationships that existed before the enactment of the law. In
criminal law, it may criminalise actions that were legal when committed; it may
aggravate a crime by bringing it into a more severe category than it was in when it was
committed; it may change the punishment prescribed for a crime, as by adding new
penalties or extending sentences; or it may alter the rules of evidence in order to make
conviction for a crime likelier than it would have been when the deed was committed.

43. Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus – It means false in one thing, false in everything.
Read under section 16 of the Indian Evidence Act. But this maxim is not followed in
India, as held in the case of Suchita Singh and Anr vs State of Punjab and Ors (2015).

44. Fatum – Beyond human foresight.

45. Factum probandum – It means the facts that need to be proved. This maxim is read
under section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act.

46. Factum probans – Relevant fact. In other words, it means a fact or statement of facts
offered in evidence as proof of another fact. It is read under section 3 of the Indian
Evidence Act.

47. Fraus est celare fraudem – It is a fraud to conceal a fraud.

48. Functus officio – No longer having power or jurisdiction.

49. Furiosi nulla voluntas est – Mentally impaired or mentally incapable persons cannot
validly sign a will, contract, or form the frame of mind necessary to commit a crime. Or a
person with mental illness has no free will.

50. Furious absentis loco est – A madman is like one who is absent. Read with section 84
of IPC.

Name of Student: Busia, Kennith John E.

Course/Year/Section: BSCrim 2 Delta
Instructor: Mrs. Gian Venci T. Alonzo