Free Legal Advice Philippines

Disclaimer: This web site is designed for general information only and does not create attorney-client relationship. Persons accessing this site are encouraged to seek independent counsel for legal advice regarding their individual legal issues.

Log in

I forgot my password




You are not connected. Please login or register

Article 11, Par. 6 of the RPC and Article 3 of the Civil Code

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

nicholeomg


Arresto Menor
Good day!

I am confused.

Under the justifying circumstances, Article 11, Par. 6 of the RPC states, "Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose." In his explanation, Luis B. Reyes mentioned, "The subordinate is not liable for carrying out an illegal order of his superior, if he is not aware of the illegality of the order and he is not negligent."

Meanwhile in Article 3 of the Civil Code, it states, "Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith."

Questions:
1. What are the differences between the unawareness of the illegality (Art. 11, Par. 6 of the RPC) and ignorance of the law (Art. 3 of the Civil Code)?
2. Do you have a case that held the justification of the individual's act with regards to Article 11, Par. 6 of the RPC? If yes, I would really like to know. Please.

Your response is truly appreciated.

View user profile http://nicholeomg.tumblr.com/

tsi ming choi


Reclusion Perpetua
nicholeomg wrote:
Questions:
1. What are the differences between the unawareness of the illegality (Art. 11, Par. 6 of the RPC) and ignorance of the law (Art. 3 of the Civil Code)?

The RPC provision refers to the ORDER of the superior, which may be a lawful order because it is in accordance or mandated by law or an unlawful order because it is contrary to law.

Now, as to the question of Unawareness of illegality, the subordinate is not liable because of:

1. Mistake of facts surrounding the circumstances(order of the superior). AND

2. Basic rule in criminal law that GOOD FAiTH is a valid defense. The subordinate acted in Good faith that the order is lawful (as a presumption). so he believed and unaware that it is in fact an illegal order.

While the civil code refers to ignorance of a law, which is written and duly published, Wherein, being unaware of such existing law is not a valid defense to relieve one from any further liabilities.

LAW is different from ORDER(command), the law carries with it the presumption of legality.

View user profile

nicholeomg


Arresto Menor
tsi ming choi wrote:LAW is different from ORDER(command), the law carries with it the presumption of legality.
Thank you so much. Smile

View user profile http://nicholeomg.tumblr.com/

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum