Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1) IN CRIMINAL LAW 1
1. Define:
Law
Criminal Law
Crime
Felony
Offense
9. Art. 2, RPC -- What are those felonies against National Security and the Law of
Nations?
Distinguish from each other: TERRITORIALITY; EX TERRITORIALITY;
and EXTERRITORIALITY.
10. Meaning of DOLO and CULPA? What are there elements?
11. What do you understand by the following in relation to FELONY?
Freedom;
Intelligence;
Intent;
Negligence; and
Imprudence.
12. Distinguish from each other: General Intent & Specific Intent.
Cases:
Pp v. Oanis, July 27, 1943; and
Tabuena v. Hon. Sandiganbayan and People, Feb. 17, 1997.
13. Distinguish: MALA EN SE & MALA PROHIBITA. Discuss fully.
Pp v. Neri, Dec. 19, 1985
14. Article 4, RPC --Case:
Pp v. Ural, March 27, 1974.
15. PROXIMATE CAUSE and REMOTE CAUSE -- Urbano v. IAC, Jan. 7, 1988;
MERALCO v. Remoquillo, May 18, 1956; and
El Pueblo de Filipinas v. Raymudo Relin, Feb. 28, 1947.
16. Art. 6, RPC -- Pp v. Go Kay, Dec. 19, 1957
Pp v. Mauricio, Feb. 28, 2001
17. Distinguish FORMAL CRIMES from MATERIAL CRIMES.
18. Distinguish SUBJECTIVE PHASE from OBJECTIVE PHASE.
Pp v. Palomares, (CA) 75 O.G. 5739.
Padayuman v. Pp, Jan. 23, 2002.
Pp v. Costales, Jan. 15, 2002.
Pp. v. Billones, July 21, 1978
Pp v. Kalao, March 17, 1934.
U.S. v. Simeon, April 15, 1904.
Pp v. PO3 Tan, June 21, 2001.
Pp v. Aca-ac, April 20, 2001.
Pp v. Fernandez, 54 Phil. 122.
Pp v. Mercado, June 15, 1938.
U.S. v. Adiao, Oct. 8, 1918.
Pp v. Dino, 45 O.G. 3446.
19. Art. 11, RPC -- Pp v. Luague and Alcansare, Nov. 7, 1935
Page 2
Atty. Amado V. Domingo, Jr.
Intoxication
Pp. v. Muerong, July 6, 2001
Pp v. Cortes, July 11, 2001
Pp v. Bato, Dec. 15, 2000
39. ACCOMPLICES
40. ACCESSORIES
DELITO COMPLEJO
Pp v. Salvilla, 26 April 1990 Necessary means
Pp v. Ramos, 12 Oct. 1998; Cited in Pp v. Rimorin, et al., 16 May 2000
RA No. 7659
People v. Jose, et al., G.R. No. L- 28232, Feb. 6, 1971, 37 SCRA 450
Pp v. Tami, May 2, 1995
PENALTIES
Divisible penalties are divided into three [3] equal portions. Each portion is known as a period.
If there is an ordinary mitigating circumstance [OMC], the penalty is to be lowered by one period for
every OMC, except where Art. 64, Paragraph 5 applies.
If there is an aggravating circumstance, the penalty should be increased by one period for
every attendant aggravating circumstance, but not to exceed the maximum of the penalty prescribed
for the crime committed.
If there is neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstance, the prescribed penalty should be
imposed, in its medium period where no period is mentioned.
When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances are present, the court shall reasonably
offset those of one class against the other according to their relative weight. [Art. 64]
A degree, on the other hand is a graduation of penalties. The graduated scales of penalties
are provided in Art. 71, thus:
SCALE NO. 1
1. Death
2. Reclusion perpetua
3. Reclusion temporal
4. Prision mayor
5. Prision correccional
6. Arresto mayor
7. Destierro
8. Arresto menor
9. Public censure
10. Fine
SCALE NO. 2
1. Perpetual absolute disqualification
2. Temporary absolute disqualification
3. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, and the
right to follow a profession or calling
4. Public censure
5. Fine
Each penalty in the above scales is a DEGREE IN ITSELF.
Thus, one degree lower than death, the highest degree, is reclusion perpetua.
Many penalties, however, are composed of periods. Thus, where the penalty for a crime is
prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods. It is composed of two [2] periods. One degree
lower is just the next lower 2 periods, or arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods.
On the other hand, before the advent of GONZALES, if the penalty for a crime is, say,
reclusion temporal in its medium period the same is composed of one period only. The penalty one
degree lower is just the next lower period or reclusion temporal minimum [See People vs. Gonzales,
73 Phil. 549, infra, which is governing.]. Finally, if the penalty is reclusion temporal in its maximum
period to death, as a special case, this penalty is considered composed of 3 periods. One degree,
lower is just the next lower 3 periods or prision mayor maximum to reclusion temporal medium. To
illustrate:
1. Penalty composed of 3 periods: say, reclusion temporal maximum to death.
1. Death - - - - - - - - prescribed
2. Reclusion perpetua - - - penalty
3. Reclusion temporal -- max
Page 9
Atty. Amado V. Domingo, Jr.
med
min
4. Prision mayor ------ max
med
min
5. Prision correccional-- max
med
min
6. Arresto mayor
7. Destierro
8. Arresto menor
9. Public censure
10. Fine
prescribed
penalty
one degree lower
Page 10
Atty. Amado V. Domingo, Jr.
penalty should be two (2) years and four (4) months of prision correccional, as minimum; and eight (8)
years of prision mayor, as maximum.
NOTE: The crime was committed on August 15, 1990 in Samal, Davao. The penalty then
imposable for MURDER was --Art. 248. Murder. Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill
another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum
period to death, if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:
=============================================================================
HOW TO DIVIDE PENALTIES COMPOSED OF PERIODS IN THREE EQUAL PERIODS
1. Prescribed penalty: Prision mayor maximum to reclusion temporal medium. [3-period
penalty]
1. Get the range of the penalty: 10 y and 1d to 17y and 4m
2. Prescribed penalty: prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods. [2-period
penalty]
1. Range --- 6m 1d to 4y 2m
2. Subtract 4y 2m - 6m [do not include the day] = 3y 8m
3. 3y 8m 3 = 1y 2m 20d
4. min 6m 1d to 1y 8m 20d
med 1y 8m 21d to 2y 11m 10d
max 2y 11m 11d to 4y 2m 00d
3. Prescribed penalty: Reclusion temporal medium [1-period penalty]
1. 14 years 8 months 1 day to 17 years 4 months
2. 17y 4m - 14y 8m = 2 years and 8 months
3. 2 year and 8 months divided by 3 = 10 months 20 days
4. min 14y 8m 1d to 15y 6m 20d
med 15y 6m 21d to 16y 5m 10d
max 16y 5m 11d to 17y 4m 00d
TABULATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE CHAPTER
First
Case
Penalty
prescribed for the
crime
Penalty to be
imposed upon the
principal
in
a
frustrated crime,
and
the
accomplice in a
consummated
crime
Death
Reclusion
perpetua
Penalty
to
be
imposed upon the
principal
in
an
attempted crime, the
accessory in the
consummated
crime,
and
the
accomplices in a
frustrated crime
Reclusion temporal
Page 11
Atty. Amado V. Domingo, Jr.
Penalty to be
imposed upon the
accessory in a
frustrated crime,
and the accomplices in an attempted
crime
Penalty to be
imposed upon
the accessory
in
an
attempted
crime
Prision mayor
Prision
correccional
Second
Case
Third
case
Fourth
Case
Reclusion
perpetua
to
death
Reclusion
temporal in its
maximum period
to
death
Reclusion
temporal
Prision mayor
Prision
Correccional
Arresto mayor
Prision mayor in
its
maximum
period to reclusion
temporal in its
medium period.
Prision correccional
in
its maximum
period to prision
mayor in its medium
period.
Arresto mayor in
its maximum
period to prision
correccional in
its medium period.
Fine
Prision mayor in
its
maximum
period
to
reclusion
temporal in its
medium period.
Prision
correccional in its
maximum period
to prision mayor
in its medium
period.
and
arresto
mayor in its
minimum and
medium
periods.
Fine
TABULAR PRESENTATION:
PROVIDED THAT THE RAPE MERELY ACCOMPANIED THE ROBBERY
AND NOT IN FURTHERANCE OF OR PURSUANT TO THE CONSPIRACY. ALSO,
THE RAPE IS NOT A NECESSARY AND LOGICAL CONSEQUENCE OF THE
INTENDED CRIME.
A. CONSPIRACY:
All of these also apply to robbery with homicide. [See concurring opinion of J.
Gutierrez in the Escober case.]
1. XYZ --- CONSPIRED TO ROB.
XYZ --- ROB
XY --- RAPE A
Z --- NO KNOWLEDGE ABOUT
THE
RAPE
ORHAS
KNOWLEDGE
BUT
ENDEAVORS TO PREVENT ITS
COMMISSION
-ORNO
CHANCE TO PREVENT ITS
COMMISSION, E.G. BECAUSE
OF
SUDDENNESS.
[SEE:
OMPAD CASE]
Page 12
Atty. Amado V. Domingo, Jr.
AUTHORITIES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Page 13
Atty. Amado V. Domingo, Jr.