Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
20Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
B2013 Crim2 Case Doctrines

B2013 Crim2 Case Doctrines

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,688 |Likes:
Published by Camille Umali

More info:

Published by: Camille Umali on Jun 24, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

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

11/17/2014

pdf

text

original

 
B2013 Crim2 Reviewer | Case doctrines
Camille
 
Arianne
 
Jill
 
Loraine
 
Richard
 
Welga
 
JC
 
Sophie
1
 
Title 1: CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY
 
Title Year Facts / Tags Held/Ratio Sir's Notes
TREASON 
 Laurel v. Misa 1947Filipino citizen who gave aid and comfort to theJapanese contends that since sovereignty issuspended, his allegiance as well is suspendedNo. Citizen owes his governmentpermanent and absolute allegiance.Treason is a war crime. It is punished by state as ameasure of self-defense and self-preservation.Law of treason is an emergency measure
 –
dormantuntil emergency arisesWhat is suspended is the exercise of rights notsovereigntyPeople v. Perez 1949Perez with other Filipinos apprehended womento satisfy desires of Colonel Mini.No. Commandeering of women, againsttheir will, to satisfy the sexual desires of the enemy is not treason because it
doesn’t directly or materially improve war
efforts of the enemy.General Rule:-
 
Extent of aid/comfort given to the enemies mustbe to render assistance to them as enemies andnot merely as individualsPeople v. Prieto 1948Accused caused torture of several Filipinos.-
 
Seen dragging the American aviator-
 
Seen walking with the AmericansNo. Two witness rule was not satisfied.
No. There’s no complex crime of treason
and murder/PIMurder and physical injuries are inherent in the crimeof treason characterized by the giving of aid andcomfort to the enemy.People v. Manayao 1947Accused was member of Makapili.Invoked CA 63
 –
loss of citizenship:1.
 
Oath of allegiance2.
 
Becoming an officer3.
 
Declared as deserter of armed forcesNo. legislature did not intend that canrenounce duties simply by taking oath of allegiance during war time.-
 
No evidence presentedAre citizens barred from renouncing citizenshipduring war time?
 –
YESCA 63: oath of allegiance: sworn to help in war isdifferent from swearing to support consti and laws.People v. Adriano 1947Accused was a Makapili.Witnesses presented only testified to him joining the Makapili army. Other acts were notestablished by 2 witnesses.No. 2-witness rule is severely restrictive.-
 
Corroboration in directtestimony to the same overt actBeing a member is an overt act2-witness rule: favorable to the accused
PIRACY 
 People v. Lol-lo andSaraw1922
Dutch and Moros
Boat of Dutch possession was surrounded by 6vintas with moros. Took all the cargo, rapedwomen and attacked some men.Piracy is a crime against mankind. (hosteshumani generis)Only political law is changed. Municipallaws remain in forceIs the 2-witness rule still applicable today?
 
Created at a time when the only way to recall eventsis through human memory and human memory isunreliable.
 
different events: purpose of the rule is defeated
 
now, not the only way to prove treason
 –
VIDEOS!
 
People v. Rodriguez 1985
Tawi-tawi, MV Noria, pump boat 
Accused stole equipments and personalproperties of the crew members andpassengers.Crime was positively testified by 3witnesses.PD 532: Mandatory death penalty forpersons who committed piracy with rape,murder or homicide
Offender PurposePiracy
External Intent to gain
Mutiny
Crew/passenger Defiance
Robbery
Crew/Passenger Intent to gainPeople v. Siyoh 1985
Pilas island 
Accused was apprehended because he was seenthe pants which he took from the victimYes.PD 532: special complex crime regardlessof number of victimsQualified: if successfully boarded/seized
 
Piracy: enough that vessel was fired upon even if theoffenders has not yet boarded
 
 
B2013 Crim2 Reviewer | Case doctrines
Camille
 
Arianne
 
Jill
 
Loraine
 
Richard
 
Welga
 
JC
 
Sophie
2
 
Title 2: CRIMES AGAINST FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THE STATE
Title Year Facts / Tags Held/Ratio Sir's Notes
 ARBITRARY DETENTION 
 Umil v. Ramos 1990
NPA, PISTON 
Arrest
ed in a hospital, Constantino’s
house, etc.Arrests were valid. Subversion is acontinuing offense.Theory of hot pursuit: supposed to apprehend the accused butdisappeared and was later on arrested at home while asleep-
 
Why would one who evades justice would go homePrinciple that subversion is a continuing offense-
 
Would a person spend every waking moment/100% of thetime doing subversive acts?-
 
Logical: not yet done with one overt act-
 
Ridiculous: committing 100% of the timePeople v. Burgos 1986Gun was buried.NPA pamphlets under a pile of cogon.He was arbitrarily detained.Warrantless arrest: only if urgent-
 
If not urgent, why not just secure a warrantMilo v. Salanga 1987Barrio captain.Detained for 11 hours.Barrio captain can be held liable forArbitrary detention.RA 3590: revised barrio charter-
 
Power and duties of barrio captain similar to that of mayors
SEARCH WARRANTS
 Stonehill v. Diokno 196742 search warrants, search premisesof office/warehouse/residence, takepossession of persona properties(book of accounts, financial records,etc.) as violation of Central BankLaws, Custom Laws, InternalRevenue Code and RPCSearch warrants were invalid.Documents were inadmissible asevidence.Level of specificity-
 
Look for evidence or fish for evidence-
 
No idea of a specific crime committed-
 
No specific chargeFruit of the poison tree-
 
Prohibit illegal search and all fruits obtained from itWhy use exclusionary principle when we already have A.128?-
 
Incentive/disincentive-
 
Need for other means of deterrence-
 
If more lenient to police officers= the government willbenefit from the search-
 
Tendency: just do it, will be pardoned later onExclusionary rule-
 
Deterrence-
 
Imperative of judicial integrity-
 
Should not profit from lawless behavior-
 
Minimize risk of seriously undermining popular trust ingovernment
 
B2013 Crim2 Reviewer | Case doctrines
Camille
 
Arianne
 
Jill
 
Loraine
 
Richard
 
Welga
 
JC
 
Sophie
3
 
Burgos v. Chief of Staff 1984
Metropolitan Mail, We Forum
Searched office and seize printingmachines and equipments, motorvehicles, numerous papers anddocumentsSearch warrants were invalidNo sufficient basis for the finding of probable cause.Did not discuss what subversive acts were committed-
 
Police did not make FACTUAL STATEMENTS-
 
Should have described what is there and let the judge makethe conclusion-
 
Determination of WON the act is subversive is done by thecourts
What the police did: “it is subversive”
 
What they should’ve done: present evidence of subversion like
written articles, etc.Distinguish between factual and non-factual statements
OFFENDING RELIGIOUS FEELINGS
People v. Mandoriao 1955
INC, debate
“Jesus Christ is not God, but onlyman”
 Religious rally in a public place(Baguio)Religious rally is not a religiousceremony-
 
Not a place of worship-
 
Object of meeting was topersuade new converts-
 
There was already a commotionbefore Mandoriao went up thestage-
 
Act was not notoriously offensiveto feelings of the faithfulLook at his acts and determine WON it is a religious ceremonyPeople v. Baes
Church of Christ 
Funeral would pass the churchyardof a Roman Catholic Church. Priestprevented them but was threatenwith physical violence. He wasprevailed.Fiscal dismissed the case forinsufficiency of evidence.Fiscal was ordered to comply with hisduties. REMANDED.-
 
Question of WON it isoffensive to the religiousfeelings of the faithful is aquestion of fact.Determined in aproceeding.According to the feelings of the Catholic not of the other faithfulones.General Rule: perspective of the one offendedNot a ruling on guilt but on sufficiency of allegation for trial toproceedPeople v. Tengson 1971
Christ is the answer 
 Funeral; performed religious rites inthe house and in an unfinishedbarrio chapel-
 
Chanting of Alleluia,singing religious hymnsAcquitted.Second element that the act isnotoriously offensive to the feelingsof the faithful was not present.Offense should not be depend uponthe subjective conception orcharacterization of such religious act.Laurel Standard: (dissent from Baes)-
 
Perspective of the faithful IN GENERAL-
 
Believers of Jesus Christ regardless of religious sect ordenominationPeople v. Nanoy 1972
 Assembly of God, drunk 
Accused entered the chapel, he wasdrunk and grab the song leaderAcquitted.No intention of interrupting theservices as he allowed himself to beled out,-
 
Only UNJUST VEXATION

Activity (20)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
thedoodlbot liked this
lucille0640021 liked this
1 thousand reads
M liked this
1 hundred reads
15870080 liked this
Nasha Reyes liked this
Dianne Cadorna liked this
Julo Taleon liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

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