Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
54Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Esguerra Reviewer

Esguerra Reviewer

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,749 |Likes:
Published by diane1984

More info:

Published by: diane1984 on Jun 02, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

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

07/20/2014

pdf

text

original

 
CRIMINAL LAW 1 UPCollege of LawESGUERRA NOTES2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW ICRIMINAL LAW I
I. DEFINITION AND SOURCES
A.DEFINITION
Criminal law is that branch or division of lawwhich defines crimes, treats of their nature, andprovides for their punishment.
B.STATE AUTHORITY TO PUNISH CRIMES1. SOURCES OF PHILIPPINE CRIMINAL LAW(REYES)
1.The Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815) and itsamendments
2.
Special penal laws passed by the PhilippineCommission, Philippine Assembly, PhilippineLegislature, National Assembly, the Congressof the Philippines, and the BatasangPambansa.3.Penal Presidential Decrees issued duringMartial Law.
¤ 1987 Constitution Article II, Section 5
Declaration of Principles and State Policies
. Themaintenance of peace and order, the protection of life,liberty and property, and the promotion of the generalwelfare are essential for the enjoyment by all the peopleof the blessings of democracy.
¤ 1987 Constitution Article VI, Section 1
The legislative power shall be vested in theCongress of the Philippines which shall consist of aSenate and a House of Representatives, except to theextent reserved to the people by the provision oninitiative and referendum.
People v. Santiago (1922)
Facts
: Santiago was driving an automobile at ahigh speed notwithstanding the fact that he had to passa narrow space between a wagon standing on one sideof the road and a heap of stones on the other side wherethere were two boys standing. He ran over Parondo whowas instantly killed as a result of the accident. Santiagowas convicted by the lower court of the crime of homicide by reckless imprudence. The accused appealedchallenging the validity of Act No. 2886 which amendedGeneral Order no. 58 (which provides that allprosecutions for public offenses shall be in the name of the United States against the persons charged with theoffenses), claiming that the legislature is not authorizedto amend the latter because its provisions have thecharacter of Constitutional Law. Sec. 2 of Act No. 2866contains that “all prosecutions for public offenses shallbe in the name of the People of the Philippine Islandsagainst the person charged with the offense.” 
Held 
: The procedure in criminal matters is notincorporated in the Constitution of the States, but is leftin the hands of the legislature, so it that it falls withinthe realm of public statutory law.The states, as part of its police power, have alarge measure of discretion in creating and definingcriminal offenses. It is urged that the right to prosecuteand punish crimes is an attribute of sovereignty, but byreason of the principle of territoriality as applied in thesuppression of crimes, such power is delegated tosubordinate government subdivisions such as territories.The Philippine Legislature by virtue of the Jones Law,like other territories of the US, has the power to defineand punish crimes. The present government of thePhilippines created by the US Congress is autonomous.It is within the power of the legislature to prescribe theform of the criminal complaint as long as theconstitutional provision of the accused to be informed of the nature of the accusation is not violated.
US v. Pablo (1916)
Facts:
Pablo, a policeman, arrested Dato whowas found in a vacant lot where a jueteng game wasconducted. He presented a memorandum to his chief claiming that he saw Malicsi and Rodrigo leaving thearea. However, during the trial, he changed hisstatement and claimed that he did not see Malicsi norRodrigo leaving the area. As a result, the two accusedwere acquitted. Pablo was charged with the crime of perjury and was convicted under Act. No. 1697. It wasclaimed that the Act repealed the provisions of the PenalCode relative to perjury, and the last provision of theAdministrative Code repealed the Act, thus, there is nopenal sanction for the crime of false testimony orperjury.
Held:
Notwithstanding that the Act no. 1697has been interpreted by this court in its decisions tohave repealed provisions of the Penal Code relating tofalse testimony, it did not expressly repeal the pertinentprovisions of the RPC. Also, the Administrative Code, intotally repealing Act no. 1697, did not expressly repealthe said articles of the Penal Code. Hence, the provisionsof the Penal Code relative to perjury remain in force.The reason behind such interpretation is that crimesshould not go unpunished or be freely committedwithout punishment of any kind.
2. LIMITATIONS TO STATE AUTHORITY TO PUNISHCRIMES1987 Constitution, Art. IIISec. 1.
No person shall be deprived of life,liberty or property without due process of law, nor shallany person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
Sec. 14.
No person shall be held to answer fora criminal offense without due process of law.In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shallbe presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, andshall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel,to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusationagainst him, to have a speedy, impartial and public trial,to meet the witnesses face to face, and to gavecompulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf.However, after arraignment, trial may proceednotwithstanding the absence of the accused providedthat he has been duly notified and his failure to appearis unjustifiable.
Sec. 18.
No person shall be detained solely byreason of his political beliefs and aspirations.No involuntary servitude in any form shall existexcept as a punishment for a crime whereof the partyshall have been duly convicted.
/liz@/ viv ©
Page 1 2004-2005
 
CRIMINAL LAW 1 UPCollege of LawESGUERRA NOTES2004-2005
Sec. 19.
Excessive fines shall not be imposed,nor cruel degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted.Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, forcompelling reasons involving heinous crimes, theCongress hereafter provides for it. Any death penaltyalready imposed shall be reduced to
reclusion perpetua
.The employment of physical, psychological, ordegrading punishment against any prisoner or detaineeor the use of substandard or inadequate penal facilitiesunder subhuman conditions shall be dealt with by law.
Sec. 20.
No person shall be imprisoned fordebt or non-payment of a poll tax.
Sec. 22.
No
ex post facto
law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.
1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, Rule 115
 
Section 1.
 
Rights of accused at trial.
– In allcriminal prosecutions, the accused shall be entitled tothe following rights:(a) To be presumed innocent until the contraryis proved beyond reasonable doubt.(b) To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.(c) To be present and defend in person and bycounsel at every stage of the proceedings, fromarraignment to promulgation of the judgment. Theaccused may, however, waive his presence at the trialpursuant to the stipulations set forth in his bail, unlesshis presence is specifically ordered by the court forpurposes of identification. The absence of the accusedwithout justifiable cause at the trial of which he hadnotice shall be considered a waiver of his right to bepresent thereat. When an accused under custodyescapes, he shall be deemed to have waived his right tobe present on all subsequent trial dates until custodyover him is regained. Upon motion, the accused may beallowed to defend himself in person when it sufficientlyappears to the court that he can properly protect hisrights without the assistance of counsel.(d) To testify as a witness in his own behalf butsubject to cross-examination on matters covered bydirect examination. His silence shall not in any mannerprejudice him.(e) To be exempt from being compelled to be awitness against himself.(f) To confront and cross-examine thewitnesses against him at the trial. Either party mayutilize as part of its evidence the testimony of a witnesswho is deceased, out of or can not with due diligence befound in the Philippines, unavailable, or otherwiseunable to testify, given in another case or proceeding, judicial or administrative, involving the same parties andsubject matter, the adverse party having theopportunity to cross-examine him.(g) To have compulsory process issued tosecure the attendance of witnesses and production of other evidence in his behalf.(h) To have speedy, impartial and public trial.(i) To appeal in all cases allowed and in themanner prescribed by law.
Civil Code, Article 2
Penal laws and those of public security andsafety shall be obligatory upon all who live or sojourn inthe Philippine territory, subject to the principles of publicinternational law and to treaty stipulations.
Pesigan v. Angeles (1984)
Facts:
Anselmo and Marcelo Pesigan weretransporting carabaos in the evening of April 2, 1982from Camarines Sur to Batangas when the carabaoswere confiscated purportedly in accordance with E.O.No. 626-A which prohibits transportation of carabao andcarabeef from one province to another.
Held:
The E.O. should not be enforced againstthe Pesigans because it is a penal regulation (because of its confiscation and forfeiture provision) and waspublished only in the Official Gazette on June 14, 1982.Justice and fairness dictate that the public must beinformed of that provision by means of publication in theGazette before violators of the executive order can bebound thereby. The summary confiscation was not inorder. The carabaos must be returned. However, thePesigans cannot transport the carabaos to Batangasbecause they are now bound by the said E.O.
Tañada v. Tuvera (1985)
Facts:
The petitioners seek a writ of mandamus to compel respondent public officials topublish or cause the publication of various PD’s, EO’s,LOI’s etc. invoking the Constitutional right of the peopleto information on matters of public concern.
Held:
The publication of all presidentialissuances of a public nature or of general applicability ismandated by law. It is a requirement of due process. Itis a rule of law that before a person may be bound bylaw, he must first be officially and specifically informedof its contents. The Court therefore declares thatpresidential issuances of general application which havenot been published shall have no force and effect.However, the implementation of the PDs prior to itspublication is an operative fact which may haveconsequences which cannot be justly ignored. The pastcannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration.From the report submitted by the clerk of court, it isundisputed that none of these unpublished PDs has everbeen implemented by the government.
PENOLOGICAL OBJECTIVES
a.
Prevention
– This assumes that man has atendency to commit crime and punishing offenders willprevent them from doing so again. Suppression can onlybe made possible through penal jurisprudence.b.
Deterrence/Exemplarity 
– This assumesthat man is endowed with free will and of his awarenessof the sanctions against crimes and his fear of such.Especially if there is:1. Certainty- that all crimes will be punished.2. Celerity– that punishment will come swiftly3. Severity– that punishment is proportionateto his crime.It is also assumed that punishing the offenderwith cruel and conspicuous penalties will make anexample of him to deter others from doing the same inthe future.c.
Self-Defense
This is probably aconclusion reached by the social contract theorists whohold that there is an unwritten contract between menand their society where individuals agree to give upcertain rights in exchange for the protection and benefitsoffered by a community. If individuals violate this
/liz@/ viv ©
Page 2 2004-2005
 
CRIMINAL LAW 1 UPCollege of LawESGUERRA NOTES2004-2005
contract, then the society, through the State, has theright to enforce its laws and protect its own existence.d.
Reformation
This assumes thatpunishment is capable of changing/rehabilitatingindividuals.e.
Retribution
This rests on the basicpremise that justice must be done: the offender shallnot go unpunished. This belongs to that which maintainsthat punishment is inherent in the very nature of acrime and is thus its necessary consequence.
C.BASIC PRINCIPLES
Criminal law has three main characteristics:1) general, 2) territorial, and 3) prospective.
1. GENERALITY of Criminal Law¤ 1987 Constitution, Article VI, Section 11
A Senator or Member of the House of Representatives shall, in all offenses punishable by notmore than six years imprisonment, be privileged fromarrest while the Congress is in session. No Member shallbe questioned nor be held liable in any other place forany speech or debate in the Congress or in anycommittee thereof.
¤ Civil Code, Article 14
Penal laws and those of public security andsafety shall be obligatory upon all those who live orsojourn in the Philippine territory, subject to theprinciples of public international law and to treatystipulations.
General Rule
: The jurisdiction of the civil courts is notaffected by the military character of the accused.
Civil courts have concurrent jurisdiction with generalcourt-martial over soldiers of the Armed Forces of thePhilippines even in times of war, provided that in theplace of the commission of the crime no hostilities are inprogress and civil courts are functioning.
When the military court takes cognizance of the caseinvolving a person subject to military law, the Articles of War apply, not the RPC or other penal laws.
The prosecution of an accused before a court-martialis a bar to another prosecution of the accused for thesame offense.
Offenders accused of war crimes are triable bymilitary commission. A military commission has jurisdiction even if actual hostilities have ceased as longas a technical state of war continues.
Exceptions to the general application of criminallaw
Art. 2, RPC, “Except as provided in the treatiseor laws of preferential application…” Art. 14, Civil Code, “…subject to the principlesof public international law and to treaty stipulations.” 
An example of a treaty or treat stipulation is the
Bases Agreement
entered into by the Philippines andthe US on Mar. 14, 1947 and expired on Sept. 16, 1991.
Another example would be the
VFA
signed on Feb.10, 1998 where the Philippines agreed that:
a.
US military authorities shall have theright to exercise within the Philippines allcriminal and disciplinary jurisdiction conferredon them by the military law of the US over USpersonnel in RP;b.US authorities exercise exclusive jurisdiction over US personnel with respect tooffenses, including offenses relating to thesecurity of the us punishable under the law of the US, but not under the laws of RP;
c.
US military authorities shall have theprimary right to exercise jurisdiction over USpersonnel subject to the military law of the USin relation to: (1) offenses solely against theproperty or security of the US or offensessolely against the property or person of USpersonnel; and (2) offenses arising out of anyact or omission done in performance of officialduty.
An example of a law of preferential application wouldbe
R.A. No. 75
which penalizes acts which would impairthe proper observance by the Republic and inhabitantsof the Philippines of the immunities, rights, andprivileges of duly accredited foreign diplomaticrepresentatives in the Philippines.
Persons exempt from the operation of our criminallaws by virtue of the principles of 
 public international law 
(1)Sovereigns and other chiefs of state.
(2)
Ambassadors, ministers, plenipotentiary,ministers resident, and charges d’affaires.* a consul is not entitled to the privileges andimmunities of an ambassador or minister.* under the Constitution, members of Congress arenot liable for libel or slander in connection with anyspeech delivered on the floor of an house duringregular or special session.
US v. Sweet (1901)
Facts
: Sweet was an employee of the US armyin the Philippines. He assaulted a prisoner of war forwhich he was charged with the crime of physicalinjuries. Sweet interposed the defense that the fact thathe was an employee of the US military authoritiesdeprived the court of the jurisdiction to try and punishhim.
Held 
: The case is open to the application of thegeneral principle that the jurisdiction of the civiltribunals is unaffected by the military or other specialcharacter of the person brought before them for trial,unless controlled by express legislation to the contrary.
2. TERRITORIALITY of Criminal Law¤ 1987 Constitution, Article I
The national territory comprises the Philippinearchipelago, with all the islands and waters embracedtherein, and all other territories over which thePhilippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of 
/liz@/ viv ©
Page 3 2004-2005

Activity (54)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
cristytacis liked this
Charnem Cañete liked this
M liked this
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
Gizelle Souza added this note
hhh
Gizelle Souza added this note
helpful
ey liked this
Anne Andam liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

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