This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
stage is punishable by the same penalty provided by that law People v Jolliffe Facts: When the accused was about to board a plane of the Pan American World Airways, four pieces of gold bullion were found tied to his body. He was charged with violation of RA No 265 Article 10 is not applicable to punish an accomplice under the special law People v. Padaong Facts: The offense involved is punished by CA 466 Section 174. The penalty imposed is clearly intended for the "person who is found in possession" of the prohibited article. No punishment for accomplice is provided. Only a single penalty for the principal in the National Internal Revenue Code. Held: The appellant is conceded to have performed acts which would make him an accomplice. It would be impossible to impose any penalty upon him, since RPC is inapplicable in the circumstances Ple of guilty is not mitigating in illegal possession of firearms punished by special law People v. Noble The plea of guilty as mitigating circumstance under the RPC is not available to offenses punishable under special laws. People v. Respecia Offenses which are punishable under the special laws are not subject to provisions of Article 64(graduation of penalties) of the RPC, and it ha sbeen held that the provisions of the RPC, relative to the application of the circumstance modifying the criminal liability of the accused are not applicable to special laws People v Ramos/ People v. Gonzales Article 64 of the RPC prescribing the rules for the graduation of penalties containing three periods are inapplicable to offenses penalized by special laws. Even of the presence of mitigating and aggravating circumstances. This Code is considered supplementary to special laws People v Parel SC has extended some provision of Article 22 with reference to the retroactive effect of penal laws if they favor the accused
People v Ponte Those of Article 17 with reference to participation of principals in the commission of the crime People v Abedes Those of Article 39 with reference to subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency to pay the fine US v. The accused is convicted of homicide thru reckless imprudence and violation of the Motor Vehicle Law. The person on the left side of the car suffered injuries and died the same day. which is only provided by articles 39 & 100 of the RPC Held: articles 39 & 100 of the RPC Are supplementary to Motor Vehicle Law Article 39 applied to RA145 People v Lardizabal The appellant who was found guilty of violation of RA 145 penalizing unlawful solicitation of. Article 39 applied to Act No 4003 People v. or contract for. No accessory penalty. unless teh special law provides therefor People v. was sentenced to suffer subsidiary imprisonment should he fail to pay to the offended party the indemnity awarded to the latter. he violently struck the railing bridge and crushed the left side of the car. Santos The CA refused to impose accessory penalty upon the accuses found guilty of violation of Act 3992 because that law does not provide for any Article 12 par 3 RPC applied to minor over nine but less than 15 y/o . The special law has no provision regarding the indemnity of the heirs of the deceased and subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. Cueblo Trial court's contention that subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency is inapplicable to Act No 4003 is untenable being RPC as a supplementary. Bruhez Those of Article 45 with reference to the confiscation of the instruments used in the Commision of the crime Indemnity and subsidiary imprisonment in the RPC applied to violation of Motor Vehicle Law People v Moreno Facts: The accused drove a car in a reckless manner and in going a curve leading to concrete bridge. fees relative to claim for benefits under statutes of the US being administered by the US Veterans Admin.
Spouses Tan The principle of conspiracy under Article 8 of the RPC may be applied suppletorily to RA 9262 because of the express provision of Sec 47 that RPC shall be supplementary Subsidiary Imprisonment for violation of BP Blg 22 Abarquez v. because said words are not defined therein Ladonga v.18 roc to define the word principal. accomplices and accessories under the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act.11 more that the selling price fixed by the government. Art 3 par 12 RPC applied. The prosecution failed to establish that she acted with discernment. 8 RPC to BP Blg 22 in the absence of a contrary provision therein. Suppletory Application of the RPC People v. Moreno See above case Compacio v Luzon Brokerage The court applied suppletorily the provision on Article 100 of the RPC to a case for violation of the Revised Motor Vehicle Law. People v Li Wai Cheung The court applied suppletorily the rules on the service of sentences provided in Article 70 of the RPC in favor of the accused who was found guilty of multiple violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act if 1972 considering lack of similar rules under the special law People v. People v Pio Giok Tu The fact that CA 465 punishes the also fiction of residence certificates in the cases mentioned therein does not prevent the application of general provision of the RPC on other acts of falsification not covered by the special law unless the RPC provided for the contrary.18. Chowdury The court applied suppletorily Arts 17. Tan v.People v Navarro Facts: A girl 13 years 11 months and 3 days old was prosecuted for selling a cocoa P0. People The court applied suppletorily the principle of conspiracy under art. Held: The state has the burden of proving that the minor acted with discernment. CA and people . otherwise. such minor shall be adjusted to be criminallyn esponsible solely by reason of her age showing lack of intelligence.
to 17 yrs and 4 mos. or otherwise to be subject to applicable provisions thereof such as Art 104 of the RPC on civil liability of the offender. . Aggravating Circumstance cannot be appriciate din special laws People v Bustinera Appellant being then culpable for carnapping under the first clause of Section 14 of RA 6539. as amended. Macatanda Pd No 533 is not a special law and distinct form and unrelated to RPC but it shall be deemed an amazement of RPC with respect to offense of theft of large cattle. as max. the same cannot be appreciated as suppletorily affect of the RPC. a provision which is not found in the decree but which could not have been intended to be discarded or eliminated by the decree. that ten plea of guilty and extreme poverty. without any aggravating circumstances to offset the. Article 64 of the same code likewise be applicable under which the presence of two mitigating circumstances.. Panida Involved a crime of carnapping and the penalty imposed was the indeterminate sentence of 14 years and 8 mos. not suppletory when the penalties under the special law are different from those under the RPC People v Simon While the information alleges that the crime was attended with grave abuse of confidence. not more than 17 years and 4 months. entitles the accused to a lowering by one degree of the penalty for the offense. since the alleged aggravating circumstance of grave abuse of confidence cannot be appreciated. And when the penalties are different RPC can't be applied People v. Special laws amending the RPC are subject to its provisions People v. the impassable penalty is imprisonment for not less than 14 years and 8 months.The Sc imposed subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency in accordance with Article 39 of the RPC even though SC Admin Circular stated that " there is no legal obstacle to the application of the ROC provision on subsidiary imprisonment" RPC. court didn't apply the Provisons of the RPC as suppletorily since the Anti-carnapping law provides for its own penalties which are distinct and w/o reference to said code. as min.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.