Ignorance of the fact vs Mistake of fact

[mico]

Tutal puro naman fact, fact, fact nababasa ko madalas d2. (ay iba yata un) 

Share ko lang ang nalalaman ko at pagkakaintindi:

The two words above  should not be mistaken with "ignorance of the law", that was totally different and for another discussion.

Both ignorance of fact and mistake of fact are being used in defense of another that could end up for a favorable decision if proven to be in good faith, mostly applicable for criminal and civil cases.

A wife could not be liable for adultery for contracting marriage of a husband who after reasonable search of 12 years could not find her husband. That was an example of ignorance of facts.

A person mistakenly shot a person who is not actually his target, is an example of mistake of facts.

[naruto789544]

still kind of confusing... but that is words play in law...

[mico]

still kind of confusing... but that is words play in law...

Not that confusing naman po, just a bit up for a debate since eto kasi yung madalas na acceptable form of defense against a criminal case, but not ignorance of Law: A Broader sample para mas clear siguro are those found below

Mistake of Fact:

1. " Mr.A received an invitation from Mr.B, with a message: "My new house will have a blessing at #5 Tambayan St, PT Subdivision, no need to knock, just enter the gate since it is always open and meet us at the back of the house for few bottles"

The real address of Mr.B is #15 on the other side, (it was a typo error on the invitation) Mr.A entered the residence and was charged with trespassing, therefor Mr.A can use "Mistake of Fact as defense" with the invitation as evidence plus statement coming from Mr.B perhaps. (maybe a bit impossible scenario pero it's the best way to provide an example)


2. Ignorance of the Fact (Lack of Knowledge):

Mr. A Bought a Car to Mr.B, Mr.B provided all copies of papers and documents and promised that originals will be provided to Mr. A in 5 days, Mr.A was shocked few days that a certain Mr.C visited their house provided documents that he was the first one to purchased the car two weeks earlier and threatens to sue both Mr.A and Mr.B, in which case Mr.A can use "Ignorance of Fact" as defense.

[naruto789544]

great example sir.... it's much clearer now though i don't know which reason is better accepted on court...

[mico]

great example sir.... it's much clearer now though i don't know which reason is better accepted on court...

Both are accepted in court litigation as a form of defense, but not ignorance of the law. Actually, it would depend padin with the rules of evidence and kung ano ba talaga totong nangyari.

[naruto789544]

Both are accepted in court litigation as a form of defense, but not ignorance of the law. Actually, it would depend padin with the rules of evidence and kung ano ba talaga totong nangyari.

i see.. so it boils down on whose attorney is better in court...

[mico]

i see.. so it boils down on whose attorney is better in court...

It's actually secondary Sir, if the side of truth is on your side and you have the evidences to back it up, that would always be the important thing. Kumbaga no matter what happened the side of truth should always prevail, no matter gaano pa kagaling ang counsel, if you are on the other side of the fence the least you could do is look for technicalities (dito papasok yung expertise ng counse;).

[naruto789544]

agree sir... it's what my sister terms as looking for loopholes to exploit in a case...