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 follow? The point that you should remember is that did government is used to be that saying. I don’t know any Mario order juanito no he didn’t. Did Mario order more if it still applies. And so with that in mind under pedrito to call juanito? No it was his own volition. You the law the penalty for using for the first time is rehab. 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. Because in using the charge of using there change to instigation? Fiscal replies, Mario will ask must be no other crimes. Because in possession there is pedrito naa kay shabu? Wala? Sige pangitai kog shabu. a penalty. Now here, we are not talking about Because now you are ordering him to produce shabu. possession. We are talking about another crime. The Because he did not decide yet to commit the crime. transaction to sell. Now if it was pedrito who was Okay? You follow. But it was said here that he was buying? It is a crime. If juanito was the one selling? trying to impressa and So he was not ordered. Okay? There is a crime. So pedrito can be criminally liable for You follow? Any questions? Yes. *someone asked* Is it buying. In this case, 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. 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. When you have in your possession the one buying even if he is 17 because he acted with drugs, then that’s a crime of illegal possession. 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. he can be liable but his minority will become a But necessarily, when you are an addict you must have privileged mitigating circumstance. The crime will be possession of drugs. Obvious? Hahaha. buying as far as pedrito is concerned. Those are the important question you need to ask. Determine whether Fiscal an example of some kind of drug. was the accused already decided to commit the crime. “SHAMTE or XANTHE or AMTY” there are also So Mario will not be liable because this is entrapment. instances when you don’t possess drugs kay all you have to do is present your arms and they will inject you. So X liable for robbery number 2? So now you will you are not in possession. But in shabu necessarily you notice whether you answered accomplice you will have have to own in. 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. So it does not you must also be in possession. Here’s the thing. In matter. But ofcourse if you answer conspirator then using, you must not be. In order for you to be charged that’s minus points. X is not a conspirator here. E for using. Do you know the saying Jail the pusher save liable? Ofcourse. 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. Is he a conspirator? The facts are very clear ha. E was the driver of the getaway aggravating. Some of you said generic ordinary vehicle was not aware of the conspiracy you do not make aggravating. Generic is not quite correct. Remember a conspirator the facts are very clear already ha do not generic means it applies to all crimes. Treachery is an make your own facts. aggravating that only applies to crimes to all persons. So it’s not generic. Generic is like recidivism. Nighttime Okay, number 3 nighttime have an effect? That’s and treachery may not be qualifying if there is no intent a little confusing here, I thought the explanation for a to kill and the victim did not die. But is not generic it is while that the explanation was very clear already. Here specific. But never mind. Maybe what you’re trying to there was already a killing. The killing was done during implying is ordinary aggravating. Dili tanan ordinary the night but it was specifically sought so that the aggravating generic. *angelus* So Modifying victim will not be able to put up a defense. Now, we said circumstances, 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. there is no dwelling because they live in the same house. However, 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. But if you said incomplete employing nighttime so that the victim will not be able self-defense that may be correct. No defense because no to put up a defense that will make nighttime now called unlawful aggression. treachery. And so because this is treachery, and treachery is a qualifying circumstance to murder. So if We discussed already complex already complex youre being asked here, 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. Would your answer be the same? Im reffering to the first question, will your answer to the first question be Ari ta sa sayun ha, sa penalties which are the same? It means letter b refers to the nighttime. divisible. Because here It is indivisible. When the Nganu na abot ta praeter intentionem. Right I know penalty is indivisible the ordinary mitigating and you know. Peru morattle mo. Okay so, the point of the ordinary aggravating or even the special aggravating question here is that, if the victims did not die the will not matter. Because we cannot divide. 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. Now there are two kinds of lowering, degree didn’t die and there was no intent to kill it cannot be and period. So if we lower reclusion temporal because qualifying ever ever. It can only be ordinary the crime is only frustrated then we will go there. But if 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. But if the crime is committed by a prescribes ayaw pag buot. Sige, so, this is the penalty person who enjoys privileged mitigating, we always prescribed by law, because these words have different take into consideration privileged mitigating before meanings. Prescribed is different from imposable is taking into consideration anything else. Remember different from imposed. Okay? These are 3 different special mitigating. meanings. When we say prescribed by law ayaw pag buot. That’s what the law says. 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. Example if penalty prescribed by law but this will not be the it committed by a band/syndicate, if a person is a quasi- penalty actually imposed because here it will be wrong recidivist, always max. This is also the penalty if a for the court to impose this penalty if the crime is crime is also a complex crime. Diba? Max of what? Max homicide. Is it the penalty prescribed? Yes it the penalty of the griever crime. So if we say direct assault with imposed no. Because in order to impose you have to take homicide. The griever is homicide that will be the basis. into effect the ordinary aggravating ordinary The penalty will not be here anymore. It will be based mitigating. So if it is homicide you cannot impose the here. Because this is not complex crime. So ordinary whole. If there are aggravating mitigating then you can complex crime not special complex crime ha. The only impose this. Only this. Okay? Now. penalty is always maximum. If there are ordinary aggravating ordinary mitigating we will off set them Mao na siyay imposable. Nya dili paman na maoy and then now will go to the periods. We lower, we ma impose. It’s not yet the penalty the court will graduate, we either lower or higher, depende asang impose. The law decided congress decided to make your daghan mitigating or aggravating. But sometimes the life miserable. And so they made the Indeterminant penalty is not always this. Sometimes the penalty is a Sentence Law. Kay? Under the IPR after graduating combination. So how do we graduate when the penalty after taking into consideration the different modifying is a combination. So article 62 and the rest will say that circumstances. You only arrive at the maximum. So how if diba sa RPC naa pay death. So if the penalty is do we graduate. Let us say for example that the crime Reclusion Perpetua to Death. is homicide committed by a minor who acted with discernment maybe let us say 16 years old. He pleaded Nevermind death anymore. Now there are also guilty. Ok? Now, this is the penalty prescribed by law. penalties that are queer for example reclusion temporal Being a minor. Minority is a privileged mitigating. So max to reclusion perpetua mao nay gi prescribe sa law we lower 1 degree. Because plea of guilty is an ordinary mitigating you will now find this penalty. Right? Okay. the range of this is 6 to 8, 8 to 10, 10 to 12. Right? So This is not the imposable penalty. After you graduate, mao na siya. Kani siya. Ang minimum range under you will not yet arrive at the imposable penalty you will ISLAW, remember 6 baya na siya, kana 6 months kani only arrive at the maximum range of the imposable 6 years right? Okay. So now. It means that the judge penalty. You have to find the minimum range and what will only say because the judge is not allowed to say, is the minimum range? Under the law it should be 1 your penalty is Presion correctional to presion mayor. degree lower from the penalty prescribed. What is the Because that is not a penalty that is specific. And so if penalty prescribed for homicide. you’ve read your cases you will find that the judge will actually say the number of years and months. So since Temporal does that mean 1 degree lower is we are identifying this as the maximum range it means presion mayor? No. 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. But of course not, it will same effects as privileged. What are circumstance that depend on the facts of the case. There are some facts of has the same effect as privileged? Special mitigating. the case which are not clear. Maybe something else was Meaning two or more ordinary without aggravating of said or was done. Mo ingon ang judge for example 1 year any kind. Now, the rule is when there is privileged or to 7 years. Will that be a correct penalty? the answer special mitigating or any other kind of mitigating which would be yes. Because 1 year is within the minimum has the same effect as privileged. You will have to take range. This is the minimum range and 1 year is sakto. it into consideration. First, that’s why it’s called Kay sa minimum range it can be anywhere, never mind privileged. Hawod gyud na siya entitled. So now it max med min. 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. Minimum penalty because that penalty is within the range. range under islaw will not be here. But here. Otherwise, Within the range of the min and the range of the max. you will have a situation where ang imong maximum Now, like I said nay mga quirky na penalties it does not mas ubos pa sa imong minimum. Because ISLAW says usually follow this thing. Na mao ragyud ni mao ragyud the penalty prescribed by law anywhere. Anywhere na. So for example if this is the penalty RT max to RP within that degree. It can be min, med, max. That’s why kay. First of all it is a divisible penalty? Why is it we call it indeterminate because we cannot determine. important for us to determine if this is divisible or It is left at the discretion of the judge. So let us for indivisible because here’s the thing you know that example that, 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. That means that no ISLAW for Life imprisonment or RP wala nagyud na minimum range. mathematics There is a formula therefore. This is what Mao ragyud na siya fixed price. Hahaha okay? Now so, pp vs liang call a complex penalty. 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. When it is indivisible islaw the law says it is now divisible. So this is now divisible does not apply. The ordinary mitigating and ordinary the 1 degree lower is now this anywhere. So now in this aggravating will not apply as well to indivisible illustration this is the penalty prescribed. This is the penalties. However, privileged mitigating, 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. 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. And once probation. So we will continue tomorrow. Please read up it is divisible you can now apply ISLAW right? Kay to succession. manaog naman ka. Special mitigating is also true. But that’s the easy part. So it is possible that the prescribed penalty is this one. So if the prescribed penalty is divisible or indivisible because if it is indivisible then we cannot apply ISLAW anymore. So is this divisible or indivisible? Now according to pp vs liang and other cases this is divisible. Divisible ni ha. How do we divide that? The law says, article 62. Basta mao na siya haha. That’s one degree lower. Now how do we divide this into periods? Because now were are saying this is divisible, 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. It is incorrect to prescribe or impose the penalty of RP max just because there is no aggravating. If there is aggravating no problem. But if walay aggravating or mitigating it is incorrect to impose this penalty. Therefore this should be divided by 2 the max will be divided by 2. The lower half will constitute the min and the higher half will be medium. You follow? The principle is whats important. Lawyers are not good at