Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Syllabus Module 2 Unintended Consequences

    Uploaded by

    Ian Palma
    12 views2 pages
    This document outlines the objectives and materials for Module II of a criminal law course. The module focuses on distinguishing between different types of errors in criminal cases, including aberratio ictus, error in personae, and praeter intentionem. It also examines the distinction between errors that result in a felony versus situations where there was no intent to commit a crime or such a grave wrong. The module materials include discussion of 13 criminal cases from the Philippines dealing with these types of errors and intent issues. Key cases to understand include People v. Ortega regarding aberratio ictus, as well as Villareal v. People relating to reckless imprudence versus homicide.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Syllabus-Module-2-Unintended-Consequences

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document outlines the objectives and materials for Module II of a criminal law course. The module focuses on distinguishing between different types of errors in criminal cases, including aberratio ictus, error in personae, and praeter intentionem. It also examines the distinction between errors that result in a felony versus situations where there was no intent to commit a crime or such a grave wrong. The module materials include discussion of 13 criminal cases from the Philippines dealing with these types of errors and intent issues. Key cases to understand include People v. Ortega regarding aberratio ictus, as well as Villareal v. People relating to reckless imprudence versus homicide.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    12 views2 pages

    Syllabus Module 2 Unintended Consequences

    Uploaded by

    Ian Palma
    This document outlines the objectives and materials for Module II of a criminal law course. The module focuses on distinguishing between different types of errors in criminal cases, including aberratio ictus, error in personae, and praeter intentionem. It also examines the distinction between errors that result in a felony versus situations where there was no intent to commit a crime or such a grave wrong. The module materials include discussion of 13 criminal cases from the Philippines dealing with these types of errors and intent issues. Key cases to understand include People v. Ortega regarding aberratio ictus, as well as Villareal v. People relating to reckless imprudence versus homicide.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

     

    FEU I​NSTITUTE​ ​OF​ L​AW 


    M​AKATI​ C​ITY 
     
    C​RIMINAL​ L​AW​ I – A​TTY​. J. M. P​ABITON 
     
    ------------------------------------ 
     
    M​ODULE​ II  
     
    A​RTICLE​ 4 ​PAR​ 1 ​IN​ ​RELATION​ ​TO​ A​RTICLES​ 49  
     
    A​RT​ 13, P​ AR​ 3, I​ N​ R​ ELATION​ T​ O​ A​RTICLE​ 4 
      
    A​RTICLE​ 5  
     
     
    O​BJECTIVES 
     
    1. Determine  and  distinguish the different kinds of “errors” or “mistakes” called: Aberratio 
    Ictus,  Error  in  Personae,  Praeter Intentionem and state as to which among the following 
    cases discussed such concepts; 
     
    2. Distinguish  the  phrases:  “Errors  that  result  to  a  felony/crime”  from  “No  intent  to 
    commit a crime” from “No intent to commit so grave a wrong”  
     
    A​RTICLES 
     
    1. Rod  Hollier,  T​HE  U​LTIMATE  T​UIDE  T​ O  T​ HE  R​ATIO  D​ECIDENDI  A​ ND  O​BITER  D​ICTUM​, 
    https://www.thelawproject.com.au/ratio-decidendi-and-obiter-dictum#rules-of-the-
    ratio-decidendi​ (last visited 5 August 2020)  
    C​ASES 
     
    1. Talampas v. People​, G.R. No. 180219, November 23, 2011, 661 SCRA 197  
    2. People v. Gemoya,​ G.R. No. 132633, October 4, 2000, 342 SCRA 63  
     
    3. People v. Opero​, G.R. No. L-48796 June 11, 1981, 105 SCRA 41  
    4. People v. Alburquerque​, G.R. No. L-38773, December 19, 1933 
    5. People v. Tomotorgo​, G.R. No. L-47941 April 30, 1985, 136 SCRA 238  
    6. Wacoy v. People​, G.R. Nos. 213792 & 213886 , June 22, 2015; 
     
    7. People v. Ortega​, G.R. No. 116736, July 24, 1997, 276 SCRA 166  
     
    *Note  ​(1)  Try  to  understand/summarize  the  ideas  behind  the  “Error  Cases” 
    enumerated  above  in  relation  to  the  how  the  Supreme  Court  resolved Ortega ​(2) 
    Module II 
    1/2 
     
    Take  note  of  the  Information/Charge  vis-a-vis  the  decision  of  the  Courts  in 
    relation to the Information/Charge. 
     
    **Note: Look at how bad the Trial Court narrated the story on page 171  
     
    8. Seguritan v. People​, G.R. No. 172896, April 19, 2010 
    9. Villareal  v.  People,​   G.R.  Nos.  151258,  154954, 155101, 178057 & 178080, February 
    1,  2012  -  Immediately  look  for  the  discussion  (in G.R. No. 154954) on why the four 
    (4) accused should be liable for reckless imprudence and not homicide; 
     
     
    10. Be  ready  to  explain  why the Supreme Court ruled as such in ​People v. Carmen​, G.R. 
    No.  137268,  March  26,  2001,  ​Bagajo  v.  Marave,​   G.R.  No.  L-33345,  November  20, 
    1978,  and  ​People  v.  Sales​,  G.R.  No.  177218,  October  3,  2011,  658  SCRA  367 
    (repeat cases) 
     
    A​RTICLE​ 5  
     
    11. Mendoza v. People,​ G.R. No. 183891, October 19, 2011, 659 SCRA 681 
     
    12. See also​ ​People v. Tomotorgo,​ G.R. No. L-47941 April 30, 1985, 136 SCRA 238 
    (repeat case) 
     
    13. Corpuz v. People​, G.R. No. 180016, April 29, 2014 - but go straight to the 
    discussions on Article 5 and see R.A. 10951 25 July 2016 
     
     
     

    Module II 
    2/2 
     

    You might also like