Incidental Topic 26: Errors, Acts of God, & Non-Enforceability
Topic 26: Errors, Acts of God, and Non-Enforceability
Acts of God
An act of God is an accident where there is no intention or recklessness, thus disclaiming responsibility (Art. 5 of the CP: “No punishment without intention or fault.”)
Errors
An error is a false opinion, wrong knowledge, or ignorance of any element or circumstance of the typical action, and is not justified. Errors are classified as follows:
Relevant vs. Irrelevant Error
- Relevant Error: Taking A’s portfolio instead of B’s, knowing it’s not yours.
- Irrelevant Error: Taking an identical portfolio, thinking it’s yours when it isn’t.
Proper vs. Improper Error
- Proper Error: Affects the formation of will (e.g., mistakenly believing something is yours).
- Improper Error: Resides in the execution of the act (e.g., mistakenly shooting B instead of A).
Error on an Essential Element vs. Aggravating/Attenuating Circumstance
- Error on an Essential Element: Error on an element that determines a basic type.
- Error on an Aggravating/Attenuating Circumstance: Error on a circumstance that determines an aggravated or attenuated type.
Beatable vs. Unbeatable Error
- Beatable Error: Avoidable with due diligence.
- Unbeatable Error: Unavoidable even with utmost diligence.
Error of Type vs. Error of Prohibition
- Error of Type: Wrong knowledge or ignorance of an element of the unjust type.
- Error of Prohibition: Ignorance of the conduct prohibited by law.
- Direct Error: Ignorance of a standard’s existence.
- Indirect Error: Believing one’s actions are justified when they are not.
Legal Nature of Error
Theory of Causality
This theory adopts the theory of fraud, stating that all errors affect guilt, making both errors of type and prohibition reckless behavior.
Finalist Theory
This theory posits that errors of type affect the typical action, while errors of prohibition affect guilt, as knowledge of unlawfulness is an element of guilt.
Principle of Non-Enforceability and Causes of Exculpation
Enforceability combines factual conditions allowing one to impose a duty to act according to the rule. This duty applies only if the subject can fulfill it. The law sets the enforceability threshold, requiring normal action. Non-enforceability arises in difficult situations where the subject is excused due to adverse conditions hindering lawful action.
Non-enforceability negates culpability because it’s unreasonable to demand different behavior. Traditional causes include insurmountable fear and necessity.
While insanity defenses show abnormality in the subject’s ability, exculpation or non-enforceability addresses situational abnormality.
Insurmountable Fear (Article 20.6 of the CP)
Exempts from responsibility those acting under insurmountable fear. Some consider it a cause of exoneration, while others believe it diminishes the subject’s ability.
Requirements:
- Genuine Fear: The threat must instill fear of a genuinely bad outcome.
- Threat of a Real Evil: The fear must be caused by a real, serious, imminent, and unjustified threat.
State of Necessity
Two classifications:
- Justifying Necessity: Requires a threat of evil, where the harm caused is lesser than the harm avoided, the situation isn’t intentionally caused by the subject, and the subject isn’t obligated to sacrifice.
- Exculpating Necessity: Balances evils and legal interests, where the harm done is of unparalleled legal value.