Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Beda Pre-Week Crim PDF

    Uploaded by

    Camille Lazo
    14 views73 pages

    Original Title

    Beda Pre-Week Crim.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    14 views73 pages

    Beda Pre-Week Crim PDF

    Uploaded by

    Camille Lazo

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 73
    ) SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW Centralized Bar Operations PRE-WEEK NOTES Criminal Law BAR OPERATIONS. SAN BEDA LAW SLB SENTEALIZED 208 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Over-all Chairperson Chairperson for Academics Chairperson for Hotel Operations Vice Chairperson for Secretariat Vice Chairperson for Operations Vice Chairperson for Finance Vice Chairperson for Audit Vice Chairperson for EDP Vice Chairperson for Logistics Vice Chairperson for Membership Mary Cyriell C. Sumanqui Erica Mae C. Vista Ben Rei E. Barbero Jhelsea Louise B. Dimaano Earl Justin M. Yambao Ma. Angelica B. De Leon Arra Olmaya J. Badangan Jordan N. Chavez Hanz Darryl D-Tiu Dohn Alfred E. Aquilizan SUBJECT COMMITTEE Subject Chair for Political Law Subject Chair for Labor Law Subject Chair for Civil Law Subject Chair for Taxation Law Subject Chair for Mercantile Law : Subject Chair for Criminal Law Subject Chair for Remedial Law Subject Chair for Legal Ethics Cherish Kim B. Ferrer Kristina D. Cabugao Ma. Cristina D. Arroyo Maria Carissa C. Guinto Dentzen S. Villegas Maria Regina C. Gameng Raymond F. Ramos Rhev Xandra Acuiia LAYOUT AND CONTENT EDITORS Roger P. Cuaresma Gabrielle Anne S. Endona Joelle Mae J. Garcia Micah Regina A. Gonzales Camille Victoria D. Dela Cruz Jose Ronilo V. Ditching Jr. Paulo 0. Hernandez ZenniaS. Turrecha Nestor J. Porlucas, Jr. SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW ADMINISTRATION Dean Vice Dean Prefect of Student Affairs Administrative Officer Legal Aid Bureau Director Atty. Marciano G. Delson Atty. Risel G. Castillo-Taleon Atty. Adonis V. Gabriel Atty. Francesca Lourdes M. Sefiga Atty. Peter-Joey B. Usita 2019 SAN BEDA LAW CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS CORE GROUP Mary Camille Asi Castillo, Joanna Garcia Sarah C, Barcena, Edgar Paolo G. Gaid, Jose Ronilo V. Ditching J. Camille Victoria D. Dela Cruz, Paulo ©. Hemnande2, Nestor J. Porlucas, Je, Zennia S. Turrecha, Arcturus Viktor R. Palos, Jezzryl Blas P. Sualbio, Aiden Cyrus S, Tinoco, Josiah C. Jimenez, Patricia Camille P.Sitchon, Giorgio Luigi T. Juafto, Zayrra Bernice L. ‘Malto, Erin T. Galvez, Marion Patricia L. Rodriguez, Christian Emest C. Biagtan, Elizabeth Marino, Kenneth Aldwin M, ‘Quejada, Aira Marielle Geronimo, Ma. Consolada V. Ben, Raph Kevin L. Santos, Christine Grace S. Panahon, Cheyenne Hope Dumlao, Corina R. Tampus, Marielle Cielo B. Belgia, Jericho L.Jamig, Katherine F. Dimayacyae, Lex Angelo A. Rosario, Alissa Marie DC. Delos Santos, Angelee C. Inovejas, Antonio Jun-Jun C. Manaligod IV, Aifa Regine G, Pangilinan, Roger P. Cuaresma, Gabrielle Anne S. Endonz, Joelle Mae J. Garcia, Micah Regina A. Gonzales, Cayenne Mae G. Teodoro, Arvy Keith Chung, Lorenzo Thaddeus Ruel D. Galandines, Eric Winson F. Cea, Mark Benedict S. Francisco, Paola Beatriz A. Escobar, Ronalyn A. Gacula, Juan Igo S. Miguel, Christopher Angelo Y. Vaquilar MARIA REGINA C. GAMENG Subject Chair ISMAEL S. MACAPAAR Assistant Subject Chair CEE JAY P. SABILE Subject Electronic Data Processing SUBJECT HEADS Criminal Law I EMMALYN Z. ESCANILLA Criminal Law II JAYMOND JORGE H. MALABANAN. CHRISTINE MAE F. PINLAC Special Penal Laws CHERIE MARIE V. LADDARAN NU) en Tas JESSU R. TRINIDAD KENNETH PAOLO M. LUGTU MARIA ANDREA LOUISE T. BARBA QUENNIE IRIS V. BULATAO BERNICE JOYCE V. OLIVEROS CAMILLE ANNE E. DUTERTE JULIA MAE F. OLIVEROS RONALD A. FLORES EEA Justice BERNELITO R. FERNANDEZ Justice MARIO V. LOPEZ Judge WILHELMINA B. JORGE-WAGAN Atty. ROWELL D. ILAGAN Atty. RYAN S. MERCADER ey TABLE OF CONTENTS an REVISED PENAL CODE - BOOK! ae ‘A. General Pini ae poe 1 B. FORE sus i Ha ~ 4 ©. Penaties. PE rede D._ Extinction of Criminal Litlty Ce eet on E, Givi Litt in Criminal Cases EEE ECE ag F. Good Conduct Time Allowance (GCA) Law.. : aie 2 lL. REVISED PENAL CODE - BOOK I ‘A. Ctimes Against National Secu ané Law of Nations 28 B._ Crimes Against the Fundamental Law of the Site 2 Crimes Against Pubic Order. 2 D._ Crimes Against Pubic intrest. a E. Crimes Against Pubic Morals 3 F. Chimes Commited by Pubke Of 688... 3 . Crimes Against Persons 35 HL Crimes Against Personal ibety and Secuny 2 |. Crimes Against Propery. 4% 4 Chimes Against Chastity 51 K. Crimes Against the Civil Status of Persons 82 Crimes Against Honor. 52 M. Quasi-ofense 54 ML. SPECIAL PENAL LAWS ‘A. Antieson Law : 55 B. AnlkChilé Pomography Act 58 C.AntiFencing Law 88 ._Ant-Graft and Cortupt Practices Act 8 E. Antetazing Act of 2018. 58 F. Anttjacking Law 58 . Anl-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2008. : eee 59 Hi AntePlunder Act ee 59 1. AntiSexval Harassment Act of 1985. 6 4. Ari-Torture Act of 2008, 61 K. AntiTrafficking in Persons Act of 1995 61 L._Ant-Violence Against Women and Their Chien : essreiarae 6 M. Bouncing Checks Law c : 6 N._ Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Ac of 2002, Seite eon : 64 ©. Comprehensive Fiearms and Ammuniton Regulation Act 66 ._ Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 66 New Ant-Camapping Act of 2016. : ee er R. Obstruction of Justice Law 5 er ‘8. Special Protection of Chiren Against Abuse, Explotaton, and Discrimination Ac. 6 Iv | 2019 SAN BEDA LAW CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS. ‘Ut In Omnibus Glorificetur Deus! That in all things God may be glorified! SAN BEDA LAW. fe CENTRALIZED i” BAR OPERATIONS 2019 THIS IS THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OF THE SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS. THE UNAUTHORIZED COPYING, REPRODUCTION, MODIFICATION OR DISTRIBUTION OF ANY OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS BOOK IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. . ; CRIMINAL LAW PSS EERSTE SA General Principles: Sean MALA IN SE vs. MALA PROHIBITA 1. Minvited N to join their fraternity. N, as a recruit, was subjected to initiation rites before he can be admitted to the brotherhood. N suffered physical injuries from the hazing activities and died as a result. M and his companions who attended the hazing activities were charged with violation of the Anti- Hazing Act of 2018. M claimed that he had no intention to kill N and hence should not be held criminally liable. a. Is M’s contention tenable? b. Are M and his companions entitled to the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit 0 grave a wrong? 2. No, M's contention is untenable. Criminal intent is not required for conviction of crimes mala prohibita, The act of hazing is punishable by a special law founded upon the principle of mala prohibita. It is not inherently immoral, but the law deems the same to be against public policy and must be prohibited. Hence, as a crime mala prohibita, the existence of criminal intent is immaterial, and the defense of {9004 faith cannot be raised in its prosecution (Dungo v. People, G.R. No. 209464, July 1, 2015) . No, they are not so entitled. Anti-Hazing Act of 2018 expressly provides that any person charged with any violation thereof shall not be entitled to the mitigating circumstance that there was no intention to Commit so grave a wrong. Being charged under the Anti-Hazing Act, M and his companions are not entitled to the said defense (R.A. No. 8049, Sec. 4, as amended by R.A. No. 11053, Sec. 14). Note: The better approach to distinguish between mala in se and mala prohibita crimes is the determination of the inherent immorality or vileness of the penalized act (Republic v. Sereno, G.R. No. 237428, May 11, 2018, Covered Case). When the acts complained of are inherently immoral, they are deemed mala in se, even if they are punished under a special law. Accordingly, criminal intent must be clearly established with the other elements of the crime; otherwise, no crime is committed. On the other hand, in crimes that are mala prohibita, the criminal acts are not inherently immoral but become punishable only because the law ‘says they are forbidden. With these crimes, the sole issue is whether the law has been violated. Criminal intent is not necessary where the acts are prohibited for reasons of public policy (Garcia v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 157171, March 14, 2006). 2. _ R.was charged for both the crimes of illegal Recruitment in Large Scale and Estafa. The five (5) ‘complainants uniformly alleged that they heard either from a radio advertisement or from a friend about an employment opportunity in East Timor linked to R, who represented that she is authorized to recruit workers in the Philippines for said employment opportunity. Thereafter, comp! Philippines for East Timor. After the lapse of three (3) months in East Timor, complainants were never issued their work permits. During trial, the prosecution presented the testimony of L, a senior Labor and Employment Officer from the POEA, who confirmed that R was neither licensed nor authorized to recruit workers for employment abroad. Is proof of criminal intent necessary to convict R for both crimes? In illegal recruitment in large scale, the criminal intent of the accused is not necessary for conviction because said crime is malum prohibitum. A person or entity engaged in recruitment and placement activities without the requisite authority is engaged in illegal recruitment (R.A. No. 8042, Sec. 6). In estafa, such intent must be established because itis malum in se. Estafa under Article 315, par. 2(a) of the RPC is committed by any person who defrauds another by using ficitious name, or falsely pretends to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by ‘means of similar deceits executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of fraud (People v. Racho, G.R. No, 227505, October 2, 2017, Perlas-Bernabe, J., Covered Case). Note: When the crime is punished by a special law, as a rule, intent to commit the crime is not necessary. Itis sufficient that the offender has the intent to perpetrate the act prohibited by the special law. Intent to commit the crime and intent to perpetrate the act must be distinguished. A person may not have consciously intended to commit a crime; but he did intend to commit an act, and that act is, by the very nature of things, the crime itself. In the first (intent to commit the crime), there must be criminal intent; in the second (intent to perpetrate the act) itis enough that the prohibited act is done freely and consciously (Fajardo v. People, G.R. No. 190889, January 10, 2011) 2019 SAN BEDA LAW CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS | 1 2019 PRE-WEEK NOTES Taz is the President of Looney Tons (“Looney”), a company engaged in mining operations in the province of Cagayan Valley. Looney had been storing tailings from its operations in a pit. At the base Of said pit ran a drainage tunnel leading to the Cagayan River. It appears that Looney had placed a concrete plug at the tunnel's end. One day, tailings gushed out of or near the tunnels’ end. Eventually, the said pit had discharged millions of tons of tailings into the Cagayan River. Looney was separately charged with violations of the Water Code (P.D. No. 1067), Philippine Mining Act (R.A. No. 7942), National Pollution Control Decree (P.D. No. 984) and Art. 365 of the RPC for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Damage to Property. Tazi moved to quash the Informations on the ground of duplicity of Suits as there were multiple charges arising from a single act. Decide on Taz’s motion. The motion to quash the Informations shall be denied. The filing of multiple charges against Looney, although based on the same incident, is consistent with the settled doctrine that a mala in se felony (such as Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Damage to Property) cannot absorb mala prohibita crimes (such as those violating PD 1067, PD 984, and RA 7942). What makes the former a felony is criminal intent (dolo) o negligence (culpa); what makes the latter crimes are the special laws enacting them. Thus, the Informations separately charging Looney with violations of PD 1067, RA 7942, PD 984 and violation of the RPC shall nat be dismissed (Loney v. People, G.R. No. 152644, February 10, 2006) APPLICABILITY AND EFFECTIVITY OF THE RPC Generality 4. C, a Chinese national employed as an Economist by the Asian Development Bank, was charged with grave oral defamation for allegedly uttering defamatory words against F, C's Filipino secretary. The MeTC judge received an “office of protocol” from the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) stating that C is covered by immunity from “legal process with respect to acts performed by him in his official capacity except when the Bank waives the immunity” under Section 45(a) of the Agreement between the ADB and the Philippine Government. The MeTC judge, without notice to the prosecution, dismissed the criminal case based on the immunity under sald protocol communication. He had not given ‘opportunity to the prosecution to rebut the claim of immunity. with the MeTC judge? b. Assuming C is a diplomatic agent, may he successfully invoke the blanket diplomatic immunity? a. I disagree. The immunity granted to officers and staff of the ADB is not absolute, and is subject othe exception that the act was done in “official capacity.” Itis therefore necessary to determine if C's case falls within the ambit of Section 45(a). Thus, the prosecution should have been given the chance to rebut the DFA protocol and it must be accorded the opportunity to present its controverting evidence, should it so desire. The slander of a person, by any stretch, cannot be considered as falling within he purview of the immunity granted to ADB officers and personnel. As an Economist, slandering a person could not possibly be part of C’s official duties. Our laws also do not allow the commission of a crime, ‘such as defamation, in the name of official duty (Liang v. People, G.R. No. 125865, January 28, 2000) b. No, C may not invoke said immunity. Under the Vienna Convention ‘on Diplomatic Relations, a diplomatic agent enjoys immunity from criminal jurisdiction of the receiving state except in the case of an action relating to any professional or commercial activity exercised by the diplomatic agent in the receiving state outside his official functions (1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, Article 29 and 31). The commission of a crime is not part of official duty (Liang v. People, G.R. No. 125865, January 28, 2000). Territoriality 5. While on board a Malaysian-owned, MARINA-registered merchant vessel, |, an Indonesian crew, stabbed U, a Ukrainian crew. U died. If the stabbing incident occurred beyond 200 nautical miles from the Philippine baselines, may | be prosecuted before a Philippine court? Yes. Under Art. 3 of the UNCLOS, the territorial sea extends up to twelve (12) nautical miles from the baseline, within which all penal laws apply (Magallona v. Ermita, G.R. No. 187167, August 16, 2011). Under the Principle of Extraterrtoriality, the provisions of the RPC shall be enforced outside the jurisdiction of the Philippines against those who should commit an offense while on board a Philippine ship or aircraft (RPC, Ar 2, par. 1). Itis the registration of the vessel in accordance with the laws ofthe Philippines, not the citizenship of her owner, which makes it a Philippine ship (U.S. v. Fowler, G.R. No. L- 496, December 31, 1902). Here, the stabbing incident occurred outside of the Philippine territory. However, since the vessel is registered with the MARINA, | was considered to be on board a Philippine ship at the time of the commission of the offense. Hence, Philippine courts have jurisdiction. 2.| 2019 SAN BEDA LAW CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS CRIMINAL LAW Ke 6 Boylefthis wife, Gi, and ther children inthe home in Quezon City to work abroad A few years ater, Boy acquired a permanent resident status. One day. Gir received an e-mal fom Boy's other showing pre-nuptal photos of Boy and his tive pariner abroad. Aggieved, Git fled a complaint bofore the RTC of Quezon City against Boy for violation of R.A. No. 9282 Gil caims that Boy's marta infidelity constitutes psychological violence and have caused her mental and emotional anguish. When Boy ame home to the Philippines to buy wedding souvenirs, he was arrested. For his defen, Boy claim that the local cours donot have jurisdiction over the case because the acts complained of ranspired abroad 2. Is Boy's defense tonable? b. Assuming instead that the case fled against Boy was for the crime of bigamy, does RTC ‘Quezon City have jurisdiction? No. While itis tre that penal laws only apply wihin the Philppine tertoy, RA. No. 9262 contemplates that acts of violence against women and their children may manifest as transitory o continuing crimes. Under Sec. 7, cases may be fled where the crime or any ofits elements was ‘committad atthe option ofthe complainant. A person charged witha continuing or transitory cme may be validly tied in any municipality oF tertoy where the offense was in part commited. Psychological violence isan Indispensable elament of tho offense but equally essential isthe element ‘of mental and emotional anguish which is personal fo the complainant. Here, the marital infidelity was ‘commited by Boy abroad while ifs effets of mental and emational anguish to Girl occurred her in the Philippines. Thus, Boy may be val tied before the RTC of Quezon City where Gir and their ‘hldren reside (AAA v. BBB, GR. No, 212448, January 11, 2018, Covered Case). 'b, No, Boy cannot be prosecuted for bigamy before the local court because the bigamous marriage was contracted abroad, Following the Principe of Terrvialty, penal laws are only enforceable within the Pippin teory, subject to the principles of public itemational law and o treaty stipuiton (CIVIL CODE, At 14). The Principle of Extra-Tertonalty doesnot find application inthis case because the act complained of i not one ofthe instances under which Pilppine penal laws may apply to crimes commited ouside of its tertorial boundaries (RPC, At. 2). Note: Te folloing special penal laws also have extra-eritorial application (not an exclusive Kt): Cybercrime Prevention Act (RA. No, 10175, Sec. 21); b. Human Secunty Act of 2007 (R.A. No. 9972, Sec. 58): and _Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003 (R.A. No. 9206, Sec. 26-A, as amended by R.A. No, 10364) Prospectivity May the provisions of R.A. No. 10951 (An Act Adjusting the Amount or the Value of Property and ‘Damage on Which a Penalty is Based and the Fines Imposed under the Revised Penal Code) be given retroactive efect? ‘The answer must be qualified. As a rule, penal laws should not have retroactive application, lest they ‘acquire the character of an ex post facto law. An exception to this rule, however, is when the law i advantageous to the accused (Valerso v. People, G.R. No. 164815, February 22, 2608). The amendatory effects ofA. No. 10951 ae ether favorable or rejucial othe accused. a provision of sid Actis favorable to the accused, it shall be given a retroactive effect. I provision of said Acti prejudicial tothe accused, it shall be given a prospective effec. RA. No. 10961 expressly provides that said Act shall have retroactive effect othe extent that tis favorable to the accused or person serving sentence by final judgment (R.A. No. 10951, See. 100) Note: An example ofa provision which is prejudicial tothe accused isthe imposition ofa minimum penalty ‘of prison mayor for estafa by postdating check punished under Ar. 315, par. 2(4) ofthe RPC (R.A. No, 10954, ‘Sec. 85). Prior to R.A. No, 10951, estafa by postdating a check was punishable by a minimum penalty of arrest mayor, which s a penalty lower than prision mayor. 8. May an accused who is a habitual delinquent benefit from the retroactive application of favorable provisions of RA. No. 109512 Yes. tis well-atled tha penal aus shall have @revoacve effect insofar as they favor the persons guilty of flony, whois nota habitual criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of the RPC, although ‘atthe te ofthe publication of such laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving the same (RPC, Art. 22). However, tis rule does not apply when the subsequent law expressly provides for retroactive application. Here, RA. No. 10951 can sil be given retroactive effect because it expressly provides thal for eases pending before the court upon its effectivity whore tal has already started, the courts hearing ‘such cases shall not lse jurisdiction over the same by vite of said Act (Sec. 107, R.A. No. 10951). 2019 SAN BEDA LAW CENTRALZED BAR OPERATIONS |3 A 20719 PRE-WEEK NOTES 10. n 2 Note: When excoptonalcrcumstances exist, such as the passage ofthe instant amendatory law (R.A. No. 10951) impasing penaltes mae lenient and favorable tote accused, th Cour shal not hese to rect {he reopening of tna and immutable judgment the objective of which sto core nt so much the ndings ‘ot uit but he applicable penates to be imposed (Homan v. Sandiganbayan, GR. No. 217874, December 2017) PROREOPRINCIPLE ‘A burned the house of V, with the main objective of kling the later and his daughter, D, resulting in ‘heir deaths. Whats the doctrine of proreo and how may itbe appliog to the crimels committed by A? ‘Te doctine of pro re advocates that pena laws and laws pana in nature are tobe construed and apped in a way lenant or ldoral othe offender constant to and consstnt with the conssonal guarantee that an ‘2ccused shall be presumed innocent uni his gulls established beyond reasonable dou ‘The single act of A resid in the complex crime of double murder. Following the doctne of pro re, under Art. 48 of the RPC. crimes are complexed and punished with single penalty (.e.,that prescribed fr ‘the most serous cre an tobe imposed nts maxmum period). The fatonale bang, hatte accused Who Commas two crimes with single crmnal Impulse demonstrates lesser pervrsiy thal when the cmos are ‘commited by afferent acts and several criminal resoulons. Applying the doctrine of pro reo. A shoud be Sentenced i suffer a single count of reclusionpeypetua for both deaths (People v. Comadre, GR, No. 152650, “lune 8, 2004, Covered ase) What isthe rule of lenity? “The rule applies when the cout is faced wih two possible interpretations ofa penal statue, one thats prejudicial to the accused and anathr thal favorable to hm. The re cals forte adoption ofan interpretation ‘which is more lenient to the accused “The time-honored principle Is that penal statutes are conétued sity against the Stale and berlin favor of the accused. When there doubt onthe nerpretaton of cial awe, lust bo resolved in aver ofthe accused. Since ponal aus should not be apphed mechanialy the Court must termine wher her ‘pplication is consistent wih the purpose and reason of te law (ln v. Tull! Prebon PHL nc. G.R. No. 189158, slanuary 1, 2017), Diablos was charged before the tral court with violation af R.A. No. 9262, or the Ant-Violonce Against ‘Women and Their Children Actot 2004, Diablos claims that he may only be held able for light physieal Injuries under Art 266 of the RPC which imposes alessor penalty than violation of the ANU-VAWC Law. Considering thatthe penalty mposable under the RPC ts more favorable to Diablos, may the rule of Tenity be appli in tis ease? No, The rule olny may not be use to constue R.A. No, 9262 because ther sno ambiguity that would necessitate any constuction, The ru of en fata irtawined wih tha in dbo pro reo ppl. The ‘ile means that a cour, in consiung an amoiguous crminal sate that sels out mulple oF moonsiton ‘unishments, should resolve the ambiguity i aver of more lenient punishmont (People Temporada, GR. ‘No. 173473, December 17 2008). While the dagroo of physical ham under PLA. Ne. 9262 and Art 268 oe the same, there is suflentjstifcaon for presenbing a higher penal forte former. Cleary the legisltve Intent of RA: No. 8262 io purposely inpoue a more severe sanction on offenders to promot the protection St woman and cileren (People v- Dabalos, GR. Ne. 108960, January 7.2013, Perlas-Bernabe, 4) B. Felonies z CRIMINAL LIABILITIES AND FELONIES Jack was convicted forthe crime of murder forking his cousin, King. The tral court's decision was anchored on purely circumstantial evidence carved out principally from the testimonies of Ace, Police ‘and Doctor. Ace sald that a week before the commission of the cme, he saw Jack armed witha knife Police sald that Jack wont into hiding but was present during the wako of King. Doctor sald that Kings ath could have been dus to a stab wound inthe chest. On appeal, Jack claims that the tal cout ferred In conveting him because the prosecution failed to prove any motive on his part inorder to Implcate him inthe murder of his cousin. Assuming there fs no eyewliness to the commission of he terme and there is doubt as to whether Jack committed the erme, how will ou rule on the appeal? “The appeal is meritorious. As an accepted principe, proot of motive in criminal prosecutons is nether Inciepencabie nor nacessary the gut ofthe accused s ofvrwise estabiahed by other competent evens, as the absence of motve or the apparent ack ois no proof of innocence. When thee is no eyewitness ard 4 2019 S21 EDA LAW CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS i 7 12. CRIMINAL LAW. there is doubt as to whether the accused is ois not the porson who commited the offense charged in hs ‘ase, the question of moive becomes important. Proof as to motve ls essential when evidence on the {comission of the cime s purty creumetantal or neanclsie. Thus, in Ue abence of other competent ‘idence sufient to sustain the conviction an lack of proot of mote, ack mast be aequtted (People. ‘Abily, GR No. 134608, November 29, 2000, Ubalesv. Poop, GR. Ne. 173692, Otebor 29,2008). Ross was ordering bread at Alling Nena's store when Vitor suddenly appeared and without uttering a ‘word, stabbed the left side of Rows’ body using a sharpened bamboo stick and immediatly fled. The pains and convulsions, The following day, Ross ‘Of severe tetanus infocion secondary to stab wound, Victor was then arrested and prosecuted forthe ‘murder of Rose, For his defense, Victor clams thatthe severe tetanus Infection was an efficiont intervening cause resulting to Ros ‘death and that the stab wounds he had inflicted twenty Ave dave ‘earlier was just a remote cause. ‘2. Whats a proximate cause? 1 May the sever tetanus Infection be considered anefficentintervening cause? Explain. 1 Proximate cause has been defiod as that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any eflcentitervening cause, produces th nur, and wihout which the result would ‘othave occurred. itis hat cause acting stand producing the jury. ether immediatly or by seting ‘ther evens in motion al consttuing @ natural and continuous chai ef events such tat the person Fesponsila forthe fst event shoul, 88 an ordinary prudent and itligent person, have the ‘eabonable ground fo expert at at momen of his acto default that an injury fo some person might ‘Probably osu theattom (Urbano w-1AC, GIR. No. 72964, January 7, 1088). b. Yes. Tobe considored ficient an intervening cause must be one not produced bya wrong ator ‘mission, but independent of, and adaquste fo bing the injurious resists. Any cause intervening bowen ihe fit wrongful couse andthe final ny which might reasonably have been foresean ot ‘ntipated by the orginal weongdoes nat such an afisentnarvenng cause ae wil feleve to ‘tga! wrong of ts character as the proximate cause of the tal ijury (Spx Abrogor v. Cosmos Botting Company, nc. GR. No. 164749, March 18, 2017). Considering ine apse of went ve days ‘and the fact hat Ross werkod asa carport. might have convacied the severe tetanus inechon the ume of te stabbing incident Hea, he severe tetanus infacton was stnct ‘wound infetes by Vitor hence X may be conisered an effent intervening Grave vs, Less Grave vs. Light Felonies 2. Classify felonies according to gravity and explain each. B. When Is fine considered active, corectonel or ight penalty? ‘As to gravity, flores may be classified as grav, loss grave o ght. Grave folonies are those to which {he law ataches the capital punishment (2. deat: but noe tht RA Ne. 2345 profs the pasion of ‘ath penalty and reduces the sentence to reclusion perpelus witout egoity for parle) or penalties Which in any of tet periods ae aficive in accordance with A. 25 of he RPC. Less grave felonies are those which he aw punishes with penaties which in thai maximum period are ‘orrtana in accordance th At 25 ofthe RPC. ght felonies are those infractions of aw or the commisson of which the penalty of eresto menor ora fine not exceeding ipso ,000 or bot is provided (RPC, At. 8, as amanded by LA. No. 1095, Soe). ‘fine, whether imposed asa singe or as an tema penalty, shal be considered an afictve penalty, ifitexcoeds Phpt 200,000; a correcional penal, It does nat exceed Php, 200,000 buts nat ess than Php0.000; and alight penally, ibe less than Phip40,000 (RFC, Art 26, a amended by LA. No. 1005, ‘ee. 2. Note: Th cassfcation of flonios as grave, oss grave and ight is relevant in determining "Whether felonies can be complexed or not Art. 48 of the RPC exudes from ks operation aight felony asa component part ofa complex crime (RPC, Ar. 48) | Presenpon f the cama (RPC, Ar 90) ._Todelorsne the duration of subsciary ponalty to be imposed (RPC, Art 29(2). Ih. To determine whether an accused's lable. Only pinctpals and accompies are Habe for ight felonies (RPC, Art 16) 2019 SAN GEDA.LAW CENTRALDED BAR OPERATIONS 5 ey 2019 PRE-WEEKNOTES ¥. Todctormine whether th felony commited punishable, ight felonies are punishable only when ‘hay have boon consummated, wath the exception ol eames against persons and against propery (RPC. Art. 7) vi. Toetermi (RPC, Ar 38) wi. To determine whether or not the person in authoy or his agents nave commited delay in the

    You might also like