Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
1) IN CRIMINAL LAW 1
1. Define:
Law
Criminal Law
Crime
Felony
Offense
3. Who must prosecute criminal actions? [Sec. 5, Rule 110, Rules of Criminal
Procedures]
------------------------------
Page 1 of 13
ATTY. AMADO V. DOMINGO, JR
What are those felonies against National Security and the Law of
Nations?
Distinguish from each other: TERRITORIALITY;
EXTRATERRITORIALITY; and EXTERRITORIALITY.
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.
26. Section 26, R.A. No. 9262 --- [BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME]
------------------------------
Page 4 of 13
ATTY. AMADO V. DOMINGO, JR
Pp. v. Catbagan, 23 Feb. 2004; Pp v. Belaje, 23 Nov. 2000; People v.
Amamangpang, 291 SCRA 638, 654 (1998)
Pp v. Abolidor, 18 Feb. 2004
Pp v. Brecinio, 17 March 2004
Pp. v. Juan (En Banc), 14 Jan. 2004
(i) Offender is deaf and dumb, blind
Pp v. Garillo, GRN L-30281, 2 Aug. 1978
(j) Illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the will
power
Pp v. Opuran, 17 March 2004
(k) Having acted in obedience to an order issued by a superior
People vs. Bernal, et al., July 14, 1952
------------------------------
Page 5 of 13
ATTY. AMADO V. DOMINGO, JR
Pp v. Ilane, 31 May 1938
People vs. Arpa, et al., GRN L-26789 April 25, 1969
Pp v. Hijapon, July 10, 2001
Pp v. Abrera, Dec. 12, 1997; Pp v. Umbrero, et al., May 8, 1991
Pp v. Agapinay, June 27, 1990
Pp. v. Montejo, Nov. 21, 1988
Pp. Romeo Barros, June 27, 1995
U. S. vs. Blanco, 10 Phil., 298; U. S. vs. Hermosilla, 31 Phil., 405; Pp v.
Dos, Apr. 27, 1934)
Pp v. Clariño, July 31, 2001
Pp v. Cortes, July 11, 2001
Moises Capalac, Oct. 23, 1982
Pp v. Quiñola, May 5, 1999
Pp v. Zea, et al., June 29, 1984]
Pp v. Lee, Dec. 20, 1991; Pp v. Daos, Apr. 27, 1934
Pp v. Cabato, April 18, 1988
Pp v. Ferrera, June 18, 1987
Pp v. Talay, Nov. 28, 1980
Pp v. Rodico, Oct. 16, 1995
Pp v. Gatcho, Feb. 26, 1981
Pp v. Ortiz, July 7, 2001
Pp v. Ducusin, August 8, 1929
Pp v. Opuran, March 17, 2004
Pp. v. Vera, Aug. 18, 1999
Pp v. Macuha, July 16, 1999
Pp v. Panida, et al., July 6, 1999; Pp v. Flores, EN BANC, Feb. 5, 2004
Pp v. Abolidor, Feb. 18, 2004
Pp v. Daliray, Jan. 26, 2004 (Note: killing a child of tender age is
treacherous. Treachery is indisputably presumed. [Pp v. Caritativo, April
1, 1996] The killing of a 6-year old child by an adult person is
treacherous. (People vs. Sancholes, 271 SCRA 527 [1997]. N.B.
Disregard of age is absorbed.
Pp. v. Cachola, EN BANC, Jan. 21, 2004
Pp v. Brecinio, March 17, 2004
Pp v. Salvatierra, 257 SCRA 489]
Pp v. Leal, June 29, 2001
Pp. v. Ralph Velez Diaz, Dec. 8, 1999
Pp. Carmina, Jan. 28, 1991
Pp v. Siao, March 3, 2000; Pp v. Lao, Dec. 9, 1999
Pp v. Velo, March 13, 1948
Pp v. Bacule, Jan. 28, 2000
Pp v. Veloso, Feb. 25, 1982
People vs. Moreno, March 22,1993
Pp v. Gatcho, Feb. 26, 1981
Pp v. Panida, et al., July 6, 1999
Pp v. Ilaoa, June 16, 1994
Intoxication
------------------------------
Page 6 of 13
ATTY. AMADO V. DOMINGO, JR
Pp. v. Muerong, July 6, 2001
Pp v. Cortes, July 11, 2001
Pp v. Bato, Dec. 15, 2000
39. ACCOMPLICES
40. ACCESSORIES
a. ABERATIO ICTUS
b. PRAETER INTENTIONEM
c. ERROR EN PERSONAE
DELITO COMPUESTO
Pp v. Pama, [C.A.] 44 O.G. 3339 (1947)
Pp v. Macagaling, October 3, 1994
Pp v. de Leon, 49 Phil. 237
Pp v. Guillen, 47 O.G. No. 7, 3433
Pp v. Desierto, [C.A.] 45 O.G. 4542 (1948)
Pp v. Tabaco, GRN 100383-100385, March 19, 1997
People vs. Mision, February 26, 1991
Pp v. Pacificador, 6 Feb. 2002
DELITO COMPLEJO
------------------------------
Page 8 of 13
ATTY. AMADO V. DOMINGO, JR
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]
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
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
------------------------------
Page 9 of 13
ATTY. AMADO V. DOMINGO, JR
3. Reclusion temporal -- max
med
min one degree lower
4. Prision mayor ------ max
med
min two degrees lower
5. Prision correccional-- max
med
min
6. Arresto mayor
7. Destierro
8. Arresto menor
9. Public censure
10. Fine
4. Prision mayor--------max
Prision correccional max --- One degree lower [Gonzales Doctrine]
FIRST DIVISION
SYLLABUS
1. CRIMINAL LAW; PENALTIES, COMPUTATION OF. —
In determining the penalty next lower in degree for the purpose of applying the
law on indeterminate sentence, while some of the justices believe that said penalty
immediately lower should be prision mayor in its medium degree, the majority equally
hold that following the doctrine laid down in the case of People vs. Gonzales (73
Phil., 549), the penalty next lower in degree to prision mayor in its maximum
degree is and should be prision correccional in its maximum degree .
The penalty in criminal case No. 2109 (now L-4215) should therefore be not
less than four (4) years and nine (9) months and eleven (11) days of prision
correccional and not more than ten (10) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of
prision mayor. The indemnity to the heirs of the deceased Benito Fernandez should
------------------------------
Page 10 of 13
ATTY. AMADO V. DOMINGO, JR
be increased to P6,000. With these modifications, the decision appealed from is
hereby affirmed, with costs.
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:
================================================================
1. Range --- 6m 1d to 4y 2m
3. 3y 8m 3 = 1y 2m 20d
------------------------------
Page 11 of 13
ATTY. AMADO V. DOMINGO, JR
4. min 6m 1d to 1y 8m 20d
med 1y 8m 21d to 2y 11m 10d
max 2y 11m 11d to 4y 2m 00d
------------------------------
Page 12 of 13
ATTY. AMADO V. DOMINGO, JR
TABULAR PRESENTATION:
A. CONSPIRACY:
All of these also apply to robbery with homicide. [See concurring opinion of J.
Gutierrez in the Escober case.]
B: B A N D
AUTHORITIES
------------------------------
Page 13 of 13
ATTY. AMADO V. DOMINGO, JR