You are on page 1of 6

CRIMINAL LAW NOVEMBER 7 not tell pedrito to call juanito.

He only said do you have
shabu? Then he didn’t have shabu. That would be the
So uhm Sge lets review. Number one, Juanito end of the story but what he did was on his own because
liable? Juanito is only 14 right so his minority is he wanted to impress on his own without Mario telling
exempting. He is exempted from criminal liability. The him to do it he called juanito. So Mario did not order
key words we would look for in the answers are; No he neither pedrito nor Juanito to give the shabu. Diba we
is not liable, 14 years old he is exempted. It does not said in instigation there must be the
matter whether *inaudible kay ni ubo si fiscal* Okay so influencing/convincing to the point it is an order to
for Juanito the discernment does not matter. Even if he commit the crime even if the offender has not decided to
acted with discernment he will still be not criminally commit the crime the only reason why he committed the
liable. So, the discussion on discernment has no bearing crime was because he was order to comit the crime.
to the answer. Letter b, is he criminally liable, most of That’s instigation. Do you still have questions?
you answered no and yet you said that If he acted with
discernment then he could be liable. Kay? So from the Did Mario order pedrito/juanito? No. Therefore
facts of the case alone can you determine if there was there is no instigation. Do you have any questions? Is
discernment or not? The facts are very clear because something bothering you? Nganu but why is it na
some of you are rather undecided on whether he should daghan instigation? *Mark Pena asnwers* Murag for us
be liable or not. He is liable. Do not say that if he acted man gud fiscal the act of asking that he had shabu is
with discernment because the facts already stated that part of instigation. Fiscal replies, diba we discussed in
he wanted to impress and *inaudible*. Despite the casio case remember casio? Casio did not have chix
therefore knowing that he should not do it but still he she didn’t have chix. She said chicks mo dong? Then the
did it. So anyway, the key words that we are looking for policemen said naa kay chix? Where are you chix? At
were mitigating 17 years old acting with discernment. the time she offered, she didn’t have chix. The only
Is this instigation of entrapment all the sections did not reason why she brought chix was because the policemen
do well in this because many of you said instigation. asked asa man na imo chix. Okay so. But yet the SC
Kinsa man gi instigate ni Mario? He instigated pedrito? said that is entrapment not because casio was ordered
Okay let us say he instigated pedrito. Under the facts of to get the chix. At the time the policemen asked asa
the case was it pedrito who delivered the shabu? No. So imong chix, tanawon ta na imong chix. In essence mura
who delivered the shabu. Juanito. So Juanito was the na gi orderan si casio. And that was the reason why ni
one who delivered the shabu did Mario instigate Mario kuha siyag chix. The Sc said no even before the
to deliver the shabu? No he didn’t. Ang iya gi instigate policemen asked where the chix are, you were already
si pedrito but it’s not even instigation because Mario did decided to commit the crime because you offered. You

Because in possession there is pedrito naa kay shabu? Wala? Sige pangitai kog shabu. “SHAMTE or XANTHE or AMTY” there are also So Mario will not be liable because this is entrapment. we are not talking about Because now you are ordering him to produce shabu. So X liable for robbery number 2? So now you will you are not in possession. you must not be. But it was said here that he was buying? It is a crime. was the accused already decided to commit the crime. If juanito was the one selling? trying to impressa and So he was not ordered. possession. Did Mario order more if it still applies. follow? Any other question? Because I think something Provided if you are caught in using you must not be in is bothering you there *audri asked* What would it possession. We are talking about another crime. Under the dangerous drugs juanito who sold to Mario so therefore si juanito who act there several acts constituting different acts these will not liable because he is only 14 but if it pedrito was are different crimes. instances when you don’t possess drugs kay all you have to do is present your arms and they will inject you. In order for you to be charged that’s minus points. Those are the important question you need to ask. pedrito will not be charged for the enough for a drug addict to be caught by drug selling because he did not sell anything to Mario? It was *inaudible* using Drugs. Do you know how to use shabu? Hahaha points or when you answer principal by indispensable So when you are user and therefore you are an addict cooperation you still have points as well. transaction to sell. Do you know the saying Jail the pusher save liable? Ofcourse. X is not a conspirator here. But ofcourse if you answer conspirator then using. then that’s a crime of illegal possession. *someone asked* Is it buying. You may discernment wala sia g sugo to buy and yet ni buy then not be an addict but you have in your possession drugs. Mario will ask must be no other crimes. I don’t know any Mario order juanito no he didn’t. So pedrito can be criminally liable for You follow? Any questions? Yes. Determine whether Fiscal an example of some kind of drug. And so with that in mind under pedrito to call juanito? No it was his own volition. So it does not you must also be in possession. The Because he did not decide yet to commit the crime. Okay? There is a crime. Why is he liable? Because he profited the user? So that if you are addict the thrust of the from the proceeds of the crime. Because in using the charge of using there change to instigation? Fiscal replies. he can be liable but his minority will become a But necessarily.follow? The point that you should remember is that did government is used to be that saying. Obvious? Hahaha. Now if it was pedrito who was Okay? You follow. When you have in your possession the one buying even if he is 17 because he acted with drugs. Is he a conspirator? The . In this case. E for using. You the law the penalty for using for the first time is rehab. buying as far as pedrito is concerned. Here’s the thing. The crime will be possession of drugs. when you are an addict you must have privileged mitigating circumstance. a penalty. Now here. In matter. But in shabu necessarily you notice whether you answered accomplice you will have have to own in.

there is no dwelling because they live in the same house. However. divisible. E was the driver of the getaway aggravating. does nighttime have an effect? and also graduation of penalty so we will go back to Yes of a qualifying circumstance not anymore graduation of penalties so that we can relate it to aggravating and now the crime will change its nature. ISLAW. When the Nganu na abot ta praeter intentionem. Because here It is indivisible. Remember a conspirator the facts are very clear already ha do not generic means it applies to all crimes. treachery. The killing was done during implying is ordinary aggravating. number 3 nighttime have an effect? That’s and treachery may not be qualifying if there is no intent a little confusing here. Would your answer be the same? Im reffering to the first question. the point of the ordinary aggravating or even the special aggravating question here is that. Maybe what you’re trying to there was already a killing. if the victims did not die the will not matter. and treachery is a qualifying circumstance to murder. But never mind. *angelus* So Modifying victim will not be able to put up a defense. Generic is not quite correct. Some of you said generic ordinary vehicle was not aware of the conspiracy you do not make aggravating. Peru morattle mo. we said circumstances. No defense because no to put up a defense that will make nighttime now called unlawful aggression. So if We discussed already complex already complex youre being asked here. I thought the explanation for a to kill and the victim did not die.facts are very clear ha. most of you got the mitigating but there over and over again that nighttime is not a qualifying is no aggravating here right? So if you say therefore circumstance it is merely ordinary aggravating. Now. even if nighttime is not qualifying because it No self-defense either or defense relatives because there is only ordinary aggravating if the purpose of was no unlawful aggression. will your answer to the first question be Ari ta sa sayun ha. But if you said incomplete employing nighttime so that the victim will not be able self-defense that may be correct. degree didn’t die and there was no intent to kill it cannot be and period. But if . Generic is like recidivism. Nighttime Okay. Treachery is an make your own facts. It can only be ordinary the crime is only frustrated then we will go there. Right I know penalty is indivisible the ordinary mitigating and you know. So if we lower reclusion temporal because qualifying ever ever. So let us say nighttime will not anymore become qualifying even if that the crime is homicide because here the penalty is the nighttime is converted to treachery basta the victim divisible. But is not generic it is while that the explanation was very clear already. Dili tanan ordinary the night but it was specifically sought so that the aggravating generic. Here specific. Because we cannot divide. Now there are two kinds of lowering. sa penalties which are the same? It means letter b refers to the nighttime. Okay so. aggravating that only applies to crimes to all persons. And so because this is treachery. So it’s not generic.

if a person is a quasi. So ordinary whole. Sige. So how if diba sa RPC naa pay death. Imposable is the penalty Ang special mitigating lahi ug effect sa special arrived at after graduating okay so mao na gi ingon sa aggravating why because the effect of Special law pananglitan homicide plain and simple this is the Aggravating is to always make it maximum. Because in order to impose you have to take homicide. So max to reclusion perpetua mao nay gi prescribe sa law we lower 1 degree. It will be based mitigating. Example if penalty prescribed by law but this will not be the it committed by a band/syndicate. So if it is homicide you cannot impose the here. penalties that are queer for example reclusion temporal Being a minor. Because plea of guilty is an ordinary . But sometimes the life miserable. If there are aggravating mitigating then you can complex crime not special complex crime ha. And so they made the Indeterminant penalty is not always this. This is also the penalty if a for the court to impose this penalty if the crime is crime is also a complex crime. Okay? These are 3 different special mitigating. You only arrive at the maximum. Now there are also guilty. depende asang impose. we either lower or higher. so. So how do we graduate when the penalty after taking into consideration the different modifying is a combination. So if we say direct assault with imposed no. Is it the penalty prescribed? Yes it the penalty of the griever crime. So if the penalty is do we graduate. we always prescribed by law. always max. But if the crime is committed by a prescribes ayaw pag buot. this is the penalty prescribed by law. Prescribed is different from imposable is taking into consideration anything else. So article 62 and the rest will say that circumstances. Nya dili paman na maoy and then now will go to the periods. Kay? Under the IPR after graduating combination. That’s what the law says. this is the penalty person who enjoys privileged mitigating. Okay? Now. Ok? Now. Diba? Max of what? Max homicide. He pleaded Nevermind death anymore. Only this. The law decided congress decided to make your daghan mitigating or aggravating. Minority is a privileged mitigating. It’s not yet the penalty the court will graduate. Let us say for example that the crime Reclusion Perpetua to Death. penalty actually imposed because here it will be wrong recidivist. because these words have different take into consideration privileged mitigating before meanings. penalty is always maximum. is homicide committed by a minor who acted with discernment maybe let us say 16 years old. Because this is not complex crime. The griever is homicide that will be the basis. If there are ordinary aggravating ordinary mitigating we will off set them Mao na siyay imposable. Sometimes the penalty is a Sentence Law. into effect the ordinary aggravating ordinary The penalty will not be here anymore. The only impose this. we ma impose. When we say prescribed by law ayaw pag buot. meanings.we lower it because the person is an accomplice we will you cannot change it because that’s what the law go down by a degree. We lower. Remember different from imposed.

that’s why it’s called Kay sa minimum range it can be anywhere. Na mao ragyud ni mao ragyud the penalty prescribed by law anywhere. Ang minimum range under you will not yet arrive at the imposable penalty you will ISLAW. Kani siya. This is the minimum range and 1 year is sakto. Maybe something else was Meaning two or more ordinary without aggravating of said or was done. max. What are circumstance that depend on the facts of the case. med. That’s why kay. So for example if this is the penalty RT max to RP within that degree. But of course not. Otherwise. What is the Because that is not a penalty that is specific. Because 1 year is within the minimum has the same effect as privileged. Minimum penalty because that penalty is within the range. Right? So This is not the imposable penalty. Within the range of the min and the range of the max. Nganu man? Because if there is a that the judge can say 6 years and 5 months 7 years 2 privileged mitigating okay that is only true if there is months or 7 years 8 months wa ta kahibaw basin mao no privileged or there is no circumstance which has the na ki tayan sa swer tres. So now. You have to find the minimum range and what will only say because the judge is not allowed to say. Hawod gyud na siya entitled. First of all it is a divisible penalty? Why is it we call it indeterminate because we cannot determine. Will that be a correct penalty? the answer special mitigating or any other kind of mitigating which would be yes. 10 to 12. But here. First. degree lower from the penalty prescribed. you’ve read your cases you will find that the judge will actually say the number of years and months. So now it max med min. And so if penalty prescribed for homicide. Anywhere na. There are some facts of has the same effect as privileged? Special mitigating. it will same effects as privileged. 8 to 10. like I said nay mga quirky na penalties it does not mas ubos pa sa imong minimum. That means that no ISLAW for Life . Now. is the minimum range? Under the law it should be 1 your penalty is Presion correctional to presion mayor. So let us for indivisible because here’s the thing you know that example that. Right? Okay. After you graduate. You will have to take range. Mo ingon ang judge for example 1 year any kind. It means that the judge penalty. important for us to determine if this is divisible or It is left at the discretion of the judge. what was the whole range of Presion under the ISLAW you don’t apply ISLAW in indivisible mayor gani? 6 and 1 to 12 noh? Which means to say that penalties. So if the judge will say 1 year of PC med becomes the sort of penalty you have to reckon the or min to 7 years of PM min that would be a correct penalty 1 degree lower not from this but this. It can be min. mao na siya. Because ISLAW says usually follow this thing. never mind privileged. you will have a situation where ang imong maximum Now. remember 6 baya na siya. So since Temporal does that mean 1 degree lower is we are identifying this as the maximum range it means presion mayor? No. kana 6 months kani only arrive at the maximum range of the imposable 6 years right? Okay. the rule is when there is privileged or to 7 years. range under islaw will not be here.mitigating you will now find this penalty. it into consideration. the range of this is 6 to 8. the case which are not clear.

So is this divisible or indivisible? Now according to pp vs liang and other cases this is divisible. This is the penalties. And once probation. This is what Mao ragyud na siya fixed price. But that’s the easy part. Lawyers are not good at . The ordinary mitigating and ordinary the 1 degree lower is now this anywhere. When it is indivisible islaw the law says it is now divisible. But if walay aggravating or mitigating it is incorrect to impose this penalty. So if the prescribed penalty is divisible or indivisible because if it is indivisible then we cannot apply ISLAW anymore. So we will continue tomorrow. So now in this aggravating will not apply as well to indivisible illustration this is the penalty prescribed. privileged mitigating. pp vs liang call a complex penalty. Divisible ni ha. The lower half will constitute the min and the higher half will be medium. However. mathematics There is a formula therefore. the max will be RP having already arrived at the max what is now our medium. according to pp vs liang says yes you will have to find the minimum and medium. Basta mao na siya haha. Hahaha okay? Now so. It is incorrect to prescribe or impose the penalty of RP max just because there is no aggravating.imprisonment or RP wala nagyud na minimum range. So it is possible that the prescribed penalty is this one. manaog naman ka. Please read up it is divisible you can now apply ISLAW right? Kay to succession. How do we divide that? The law says. If there is aggravating no problem. Therefore this should be divided by 2 the max will be divided by 2. entitled. so penalty imposable and the actual number of years therefore even if this is the penalty where there is a according to the judge is the actually penalty imposed. Special mitigating is also true. Now how do we divide this into periods? Because now were are saying this is divisible. You follow? The principle is whats important. That’s one degree lower. article 62. privileged mitigating you will have to go down and once This is also important because this will be the basis for you go down the penalty will now be divisible. So this is now divisible does not apply. Can we now but so therefore the penalty is RP never mind finding therefore apply islaw here? The answer is yes because the minimum range or max.