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

Red Notes: Criminal law

Ratings: (0)|Views: 7,214 |Likes:
Published by jojitus

More info:

Published by: jojitus on Jun 21, 2010
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





(1)Distinguish motive from intent. (1996; 1999)ANSWER:
is the reason which impels one to commit an act for a definite result,while
is the purpose to use a particular means to effect such result.
is anelement of the crime (except in unintentional felonies), whereas
is not.
(2)What do you understand by
aberratio ictus
error in personae
 praeter intentionem
? Dothey alter the criminal liability of the accused? (1989; 1993; 1994; 1999)ANSWER:
 Aberratio ictus
or mistake in the blow occurs when the offender deliveredthe blow at his intended victim but missed, and instead such blow landed on an unintendedvictim. The situation generally brings about complex crimes where from a single act, two ormore grave or less grave felonies resulted, namely the attempt against the intended victimand the consequences on the unintended victim. As complex crimes, the penalty for themore serious crime shall be the one imposed and in the maximum period. It is only whenthe resulting felonies are only light that complex crimes do not result and the penalties areto be imposed distinctly for each resulting crime.
Error in personae
or mistake in identity occurs when the offender actually hit theperson to whom the blow was directed but turned out to be different from and not thevictim intended. The criminal liability of the offender is not affected, unless the mistake inidentity resulted to a crime different from what the offender intended to commit, in whichcase the lesser penalty between the crime intended and the crime committed shall beimposed but in the maximum period (Art. 49, RPC).
Praeter intentionem
or where the consequence went beyond that intended orexpected. This is a mitigating circumstance (Art. 13, par. 3, RPC) when there is a notoriousdisparity between the act or means employed by the offender and the resulting felony,i.e., the resulting felony could not be reasonably anticipated or foreseen by the offenderfrom the act or means employed by him.
(3)Distinguish mala in se from mala prohibita. (1988; 1997; 1998; 2001; 2003)ANSWER:
Mala in se
is a wrong from its very nature, as most of those punished in theRPC. Hence, in its commission, intent is an element and good faith is a defense. The test todetermine whether an offense is mala in se is not the law punishing it but the very natureof the act itself.On the other hand, an act
mala prohibita
is a wrong because it is prohibited by law.Without the law punishing the act, it cannot be considered a wrong. Hence, the merecommission of that act is what constitutes the offense punished and criminal intent will beimmaterial for reason of public policy.
(4)What are heinous crimes? Name ten specific heinous crimes. (1994; 1995; 1997)ANSWER:
Heinous crimes are those grievous, odious, and hateful offenses and which byreason of their inherent or manifest wickedness, viciousness, atrocity, and perversity, arerepugnant and outrageous to the common standards and norms of decency and morality in ajust, civilized and ordered society. They are punishable by
reclusion perpetua
to death.
San BedaCollege of Law
The ten specific heinous crimes are:
1.Treason2.Qualified Piracy3.Qualified Bribery4.Parricide5.Murder6.Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention7.Robbery with Homicide8.Destructive Arson9.Rape committed by two or more persons, or with a deadly weapon or with homicide10.Plunder
(5)What are the instances when the death penalty could not be imposed, although it shouldotherwise be meted out? (1997; 1998)ANSWER:
Under Art. 47 of the RPC, the death penalty shall not be imposed when:1.The guilty person is below 18 years of age at the time of the commission of thecrime, or2.Is more than 70 years of age, or
When upon appeal of the case by the SC, the required majority vote is not obtainedfor the imposition of the death penalty.
(6)When is the benefit of the Indeterminate Sentence Law not applicable? (1999; 2003)ANSWER:
The Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply to:1.Persons convicted of offenses punishable with death penalty or life imprisonment;2.Those convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason;3.Those convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition or espionage;4.Those convicted of piracy;5.Those who are habitual delinquents;6.Those who shall have escaped from confinement or evaded sentence;7.Those who violated the terms of conditional pardon granted to them by the Chief Executive;8.Those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year;9.Those who, upon the approval of the law (December 5, 1933), had been sentencedby final judgment;
Those sentenced to the penalty of 
or suspension.
What is an impossible crime? (1993; 2003)ANSWER:
It is an act which would be an offense against persons or property, were itnot for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment, or on account of the employmentof inadequate or ineffectual means.
(Art. 4, par. 2)
But where the acts performed which would have resulted in an impossible crime also 1)constitute an offense under the RPC, or (2)
would subject the accused to criminal liabilityalthough of a different category, the penalty to be imposed should be that for the latterand not that for an impossible crime.
SanBedaCollegeof Law
(8)Distinguish instigation from entrapment. (1990; 1995; 2003)ANSWER:
takes place when a peace officer induces a person to commit acrime. Without the inducement, the crime would not be committed. Hence, it is exemptingby reason of public policy. Otherwise, the peace officer would be a co-principal.On the other hand,
signifies the ways and means devised by a peace officerto entrap or apprehend a person who has committed a crime. With or without theentrapment, the crime has been committed already. Hence, entrapment is not mitigating.
(9)What is the purpose of the Probation Law? (1986; 1989)ANSWER:
The purposes of the Probation Law are:a.To promote the correction and rehabilitation of an offender by providing him withindividualized treatment;b.To provide an opportunity for the reformation of a penitent offender which might beless probable if he were to serve a prison sentence; andc.To prevent the commission of offenses.
What is the doctrine of implied conspiracy? (1998; 2003)ANSWER:
The doctrine of implied conspiracy holds two or more persons participating inthe commission of a crime collectively responsible and liable as co-conspirators althoughabsent any agreement to that effect, when they act in concert, demonstrating unity of criminal intent and a common purpose or objective. The existence of a conspiracy shall beinferred or deduced from their criminal participation in pursuing the crime and thus the actof one shall be the act of all.
(11)Are reclusion perpetua and life imprisonment the same? Can they be imposedinterchangeably? (1991; 1994; 2001)ANSWER:
Reclusion perpetua
is a penalty prescribed by the RPC, with a fixedduration of imprisonment from 20 years and 1 day to 40 years, and carries with it accessorypenalties.
Life imprisonment
, on the other hand, is a penalty prescribed by special laws, with nofixed duration of imprisonment and without any accessory penalty.
(12)What is a memorandum check? Is a person who issues a memorandum check withoutsufficient funds guilty of violating B.P Blg. 22? (1994;1995)ANSWER:
A memorandum check is an ordinary check with the word “Memorandum,”“Memo,” or “Mem” written across the check, signifying that the maker or drawer engages topay its holder absolutely, thus partaking the nature of a promissory note. It is drawn on abank and is a bill of exchange within the purview of Sec. 185 of the Negotiable InstrumentsLaw.A person who issued a memorandum check without sufficient funds is guilty of violatingB.P Blg. 22 as said law covers all checks whether it is an evidence of indebtedness, or inpayment of a pre-existing obligation, or as deposit or guarantee.

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)//-->