Practice question
An accused repeatedly directs a deadly weapon at vital areas, causing death, but claims lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong solely because he now says he wanted minor harm. Which is best?
- The statement automatically establishes mitigation
- The weapon, manner of attack and wounds must be assessed; the statement alone does not establish Article 13(3)
- Death automatically establishes mitigation
- All intentional assaults are exempt
- The court must ignore the physical evidence
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/statutes/acts/act1930/act_3815_1930.html — RPC Articles4(1),13(3) and49: unintended consequences, lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong and different intended offense.
- https://lawphil.net/statutes/acts/act1932/act_4000_1932.html — Current amended Article 48: single act constituting two or more grave or less grave felonies.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2024/apr2024/gr_262603_2024.html — People v. Sia, G.R. 262603, April 15, 2024, main decision: mistaken identity and mistake in blow do not automatically negate intent.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1950/jan1950/gr_l-1477_1950.html — People v. Guillen, G.R. L-1477, January 18, 1950, main decision: Article 48 rather than automatic Article 49 in the single-act multiple-felony setting; historical death sentence not adopted.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.