Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER (Padilla Cases and Notes+Ortega Notes)

CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER (Padilla Cases and Notes+Ortega Notes)

Views: 22,844|Likes:
Published by lex libertadore
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer and Ortega Notes
Ateneo Law School
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer and Ortega Notes
Ateneo Law School

More info:

Published by: lex libertadore on Apr 07, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. Verga
I.History of the Revised Penal Law
Codification Movement
-- sought to have all laws codified or writtenin a single body of aw.
Spanish Codigo Penal 
The royal order dated December 17, 1886, directing the execution of the royaldecree of September 4, 1884, wherein it was ordered that the Penal Code inforce in the Peninsula, as amended in accordance with the recommendations of the code committee, be published and applied in the Philippine Islands, as wellas the Provisional Law of Criminal Procedure which accompanied it. These twolaws, having been published in the Official Gazette of Manila on March 13 and14, 1887, became effective in July 14, 1876.
(US. vs. Tamparong)
Codigo Penal ng Pilipinas
– modified the Spanish Penal Code.
US Period
– they tried to translate the Penal code but certain areaswere defectively translated
II.Definition of Penal Law and Criminal Law
Penal laws – laws which relates to penalties
Criminal laws – laws which relates to crimes
Felony -- A crime under the Revised Penal Code is referred to as afelony. Do not use this term in reference to a violation of special law.
Offense -- A crimes punished under a special law is called as statutoryoffense.
Misdemeanor --A minor infraction of the law, such as a violation of anordinance, is referred to as a misdemeanor.
Crime -- Whether the wrongdoing is punished under the Revised PenalCode or under a special law, the generic word crime can be used.
Lorenzo vs. Posadas
Issue: W/N Art. 3606 of a tax law is a penal law thus can be appliedretroactively in conformity with the provisions of Art. 22 of RPC.Decision: A statute is penal when it imposes punishment for an offensecommitted against the state. “Penal Statutes” are statutes, which command orprohibit certain acts and establish penalties for their violation, and even those,which, without expressly prohibiting certain acts, impose a penalty on theircommission.Note: Non-payment of taxes is merely a civil liability/indemnity. The tax codeas it exists today which carries punishments may be considered penalprovisions.
People vs. Moran
Facts: The accused violated the election code and was sentenced by the lowercourt. He was asking for reconsideration and filed a special motion allegingthat the crime complained of had prescribed under the provision of section 71of Act 3030, enacted by the Legislature on March 9, 1922.Issue: W/N penal laws provide for not only penalty but also prescription.Decision: Yes.Decision: The court found the crime to have prescribed (in accordance with thenew law) and set aside the decision. The Election law contained in theAdministrative Code and Act 3030 which amended and modified the former, it isevident that the provision declaring that offenses resulting from the violationsof said Act shall prescribe one year after their commission must haveretroactive effect, the same being favorable to the accused. An exception- togive them retroactive effect when favorable to accused. The exception appliesto a law dealing with prescription of crime: Art 22 applies to a law dealing withprescription of an offense which is intimately connected with that of thepenalty, for the length of time for prescription depends upon the gravity of theoffense. Penal laws not only provide for penalties but also prescriptions.
III.Rationale of Penal LawsUS vs. Sotto
Facts: Vicente Sotto is the director, editor, publisher and printer of a weeklypaper. On May 1915, he edited the paper with the intention of attacking themreputation of Lope K. Santos and two other principals of a labor group. He wasfound guilty of libel.Issue: W/N Sotto was guiltyDecision: Yes. Penalties are used to deter people from doing the same crime.A deterrent effect upon others is one of the purposes of the infliction of apenalty for the violation of the criminal law (Exemplarity).
People vs. Carillo and Raquenio
/vvverga Page 1 of 100
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. Verga
Facts: Carillo was sentenced with death penalty for the crimes of robbery,attempted rape and homicide. His accomplice was only charged for robbingEmma Abaya and Marcelino Lontok.Issue: W/N the penalty for Carillo was justified.Decision:The accused is a dangerous enemy of the society thus, imposition of thehighest penalty if justified. Carillo has proved himself to be a dangerous enemyof society. The latter must protect itself from such enemy by taking his life inretribution for his offense and as an example and warning to others. In thesedays of rampant criminality it should have a salutary effect upon the criminallyminded to know that the courts do not shirk their disagreeable duty to imposethe death penalty in cases where the law so requires.
People vs. Young
Facts: Jimmy Young is a hired killer who committed a crime of murder underArt 248 of the RPC. He refused to plea guilty because according to him, hisguilt is lighter than those who ordered the killing of Alfonso Liongto. He wassentenced with death penalty in accordance with Art 248 in relation to Art 64 of the RPC. However, RA 296, which was approved 17 June 1948, provides thatfor a penalty of death is imposed, all justices of the Supreme Court must firstconcur. Said law is procedural thus can be applied to cases pending at the timeof its approval.Issue: W/N Young should be charged with the crime of murder.Decision: One of the justices dissented, thus death penalty was not imposed.The killing in question was attended by evident premeditation which qualifiedthe crime as murder: (a) it was committed in consideration of a price reward orpromise and (b) with treachery. This case also provides the notion of aggravating circumstances (acts that would provide for higher penalties – art14) and mitigating circumstances (provides for lighter penalties – art 13).Death penalty was imposed to rationalize the concept of Exemplarity: making aperson example to serve as a deterrent)
People vs. Revilla
Facts: The accused was charged for the crime of infidelity in the custody of theprisoners. Nicasio Junio, the prisoner, was only sentenced to suffer six days of arresto menor
, a penalty that may be served in the house of the offenderbecause of the condition of his health. The municipality also could not feed himNicasio for lack of appropriation, Revilla then believed that this act in permittingNicasio to sleep in his own house was not grave in nature, being at most amere relaxation of the rules prescribed for the care and custody of municipalprisoners. Revilla was charged under Art 223 for his actions.Issue: W/N the charge against Revilla is proportionate to the act hecommitted.Decision: No. His action then was due to a mistaken conception of his duty,hence it is obvious that the penalty imposed against him is notoriouslyexcessive to the extent of being cruel for being out of proportion with the crimecommitted. The penalty was not proportionate to the evil to be curbed.
Retribution, the penalty should be commensurate with the gravity of the offense.
The penalty imposed upon the accused for infidelity in the custody of a prisonersentenced to only six days of arresto menor being excessive, such fact shouldbe brought to the attention of His Excellency, the President of the Philippinesfor him to decide whether or not it would be convenient to recommend to thenational assembly the amendment of art 223 of RPC (conniving with orconsenting to evasion) so as to make it more in consonance with the amplitudeof the matters that a court must consider in meting out punishment to whoevermay have the misfortune f infringing the precept regarding infidelity in thecustody of prisoners or detained prisoners.
People vs. Galano 
Facts: Galano was accused of falsification of one peso bill, which he used topurchase four eggs. He was found guilty and was sentenced to sufferintermediate penalty ranging from 10 years and 1 day to 12 years and 10months. The Solicitor General believes that the punishment is too harsh.Issue: W/N the penalty if too harshDecisions: The punishment is too harsh and it may not actually serve thepurpose of the legislator. Imprisonment may change an individual but it canalso expose the person to hardened criminal. Thus, punishments should beapplied with care. A copy of the decision was sent to the president for theexercise of executive clemency.
IV.Two theories in Criminal Law
Classical Theory1.Basis of criminal liability is human free will and purpose of penaltyis retribution2.An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” – Oculo pro oculo, dentepro dente.]3.Man is a moral creature with absolute free will to choose betweengood and evil, thereby placing more stress upon the effect orresult of felonious act than upon the man.4.Endeavored to establish a mechanical and
direct proportionbetween crime and penalty
/vvverga Page 2 of 100
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. Verga
5.The purpose of penalty is retribution. The offender is made tosuffer for the wrong he has done. There is scant regard to thehuman element.
Positivist theory1.Man is occasionally subdued by a strange and morbid phenomenalwhich pushes him to do wrong in spite or contrary to his volition2.Crime is a social and natural phenomenon, it cannot be createdand checked by application of abstract principle of law and jurisprudence nor by imposition of penalties, fixed and determineda priori.3.Rehabilitation by means of individual measures on case to casebasis.Advocates personal and individual investigation, conducted by competent bodyof psychiatrist and social scientist.
1.Felony2.Offense3.Infraction of Ordinance(a) When penalty imposed is not an exercise of sovereign power to definecrimes and provide punishment.
De Guzman vs. Subido
Facts: de Guzman who is a civil service eligible for passing the civil serviceexam was disqualified from any appointment for having violated the Jaywalkinglaws and ordinance concerning cocheros, which according to the lower courtconstitutes a crime.Issue: W/N said acts constitute a crimeDecision: No. A penalty imposed for breach of a municipal regulation does notnecessarily constitute a criminal offense. A violation of a municipal ordinanceto qualify as a crime must involve a least a certain degree of evil doing,immoral conduct, corruption, malice or want of principles reasonably related tothe requirements of the public office. A crime is an act committed or omitted inviolation of public laws. Ordinances are not public laws. Criminal acts, in itscommission, have some immoral intention.
Conde vs. Mamenta
Facts: Petitioner refused to pay the new rates of the stall she was holdingstating that the increased rate was excessive. The increase is based on theprovisions of a municipal ordinance. The petitioner was criminally convicted bythe trial court for not paying the surcharge.Issue: W/N the petitioner can be prosecuted criminally of her non-payment of the rental.Decision: No. The surcharge for non-payment if not a penalty under criminallaw but only an amount added to the usual charge. It is more of anadministrative penalty, which can be recovered only by civil action.
VI.Common Law Crimes
definition: body of principles, usages and rules of action which do notrest for their authority upon any express or positive declaration of thewill of the legislature
common law crimes are not recognized in the country
the codification movement provided for all crimes to be codified, thus,a crime not punishable by law is not a crime at all.
VII.Power to define and punish crimesPeople vs. Santiago
Facts: Defendant was found guilty of killing a seven-year-old boy. He is nowappealing the decision stating that Act 2886 of the Philippine Legislature, whichprovides that “all prosecution for offenses shall be in the name of the People of the Philippines” is unconstitutional for amending General Order No. 58 whichhas a character of a constitutional law.Issue: W/N Act 2886 is unconstitutional.Decision: The procedure in criminal matters is not incorporated in theconstitution but is left in the hands of the legislature so that it falls within thereal of public statutory law. The state has the authority, under its police power,to define and punish crimes and to lay down the rules of criminal procedure.States, as a part of their police power, have a large measure of discretion increating and defining criminal offenses.
People vs. Taylor
Facts: The defendant, being the acting editor and proprietor, manager, printerand publisher of Manila Bulletin was accused of committing libel against amember of the Philippine bar.Issue: W/N the defendant is guilty of libel.
/vvverga Page 3 of 100

Activity (570)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
Amy DBrezuela liked this
RaChel Rada liked this
RenEleponio liked this
Jem Vadil liked this
Eugene Parafina liked this
Julmar Tanguamos liked this
Juliana Tamayo liked this
Joseph Mendoza liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->