0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)
79 просмотров10 страниц
Criminal law is generally prospective, not retroactive. There are two exceptions: 1) if a new law favors the accused by imposing a lower penalty, it applies retroactively, and 2) decriminalization is also given retroactive effect. A crime is considered at the "criminal intent/preparatory act" stage if there is intent but no overt criminal act. An "attempted" crime requires an overt act with clear criminal intent. A "frustrated" crime involves all acts of execution but failure to accomplish the intended result due to external factors beyond the accused's control.
Criminal law is generally prospective, not retroactive. There are two exceptions: 1) if a new law favors the accused by imposing a lower penalty, it applies retroactively, and 2) decriminalization is also given retroactive effect. A crime is considered at the "criminal intent/preparatory act" stage if there is intent but no overt criminal act. An "attempted" crime requires an overt act with clear criminal intent. A "frustrated" crime involves all acts of execution but failure to accomplish the intended result due to external factors beyond the accused's control.
Criminal law is generally prospective, not retroactive. There are two exceptions: 1) if a new law favors the accused by imposing a lower penalty, it applies retroactively, and 2) decriminalization is also given retroactive effect. A crime is considered at the "criminal intent/preparatory act" stage if there is intent but no overt criminal act. An "attempted" crime requires an overt act with clear criminal intent. A "frustrated" crime involves all acts of execution but failure to accomplish the intended result due to external factors beyond the accused's control.
As a general rule, criminal law is prospective in character.
Prejudicial to the accused, hence prospective EXC: Art 22 RPC, wherein it is retroactive. But retroactive effect of criminal law subject to 2 conditions: o FAVORABLE TO ACCUSED o ACCUSED IS NOT A HABITUAL DELINQUENT If there is a law (amendatory law) favorable to the accused, i.e. lower penalty, it's retroactive. Because prospective character of crim law is under the presumption that the law is prejudicial to the accused. 2nd exception: w/n special law or amendatory law, if there's no provision on prospectivity or retroactivity, as a GR it must be prospective. Exception is Art 22. if special/amendatory law is silent, just follow the GR/EXC. But there are times when new law has provision on prospectivity/retroactivity. If such a provision exists, then don't follow Art 22. RA 10951 Law adjusting penalty under RPC. There are times it's favorable and times it's not. Ex, theft, it's favorable because penalty will depend on amount stolen. There's a proviso saying that the law shall be prospective unless favorable to the accused. Since there's a specific provision, it must prevail over Art 22 which is a general provision. Decriminalization - GIVEN RETROACTIVE EFFECT. Even if crime committed prior to decriminalization, even if convicted or there's a penalty or serving a penalty. Because as far as the law is concerned you didn't commit a crime. Favorable to the accused thus shall be given retroactive effect. o Don't apply Art 22 here, because you consider the intention of the law o Crime is no longer a crime o Retroactive not bc of Art 22 but because of "no crime, no penalty" o State loses right to punish you because it is no longer a crime o If case is pending, court loses jurisdiction over the case REPEAL: total repeal, partial repeal o Total repeal: decriminalization. I.e. premature marriage. Decriminalized because discriminatory against women, and antiquated (DNA tests now exist to determine paternity). If case is pending, court loses JD over case o Partial repeal: repeal with reenactment Intention is amendatory. It's not actually a repeal. Problem with Congress, they mention that it's a repeal when it's really not. It's merely amendatory. Old penal code repealed by RPC. But provisions on murder, robbery, subsist. So although old code repealed but re-enacted by new law. Intention is not to decriminalize murder, robbery, etc. Rather the intention is to make amendatory rules, either penalty has been raised etc or additional qualifying circumstance. Two issues: (1) does court still have JD over case even if old code is repealed by RPC? - YES. Court doesn't lose JD. Intention isn't to decriminalize murder (2) if there's a conviction, what penalty to impose? Old code or RPC? - if RPC penalty is lower, even if accused is prosecuted for murder under old code, must impose RPC penalty because favorable to the accused; if RPC prescribes higher penalty, then prosecute/convict accused for murder under the old code, and penalty also under old code. STAGES
Criminal intent/preparatory act
A felony is always mens rea + actus reus Mens rea must be a combination of dolo (general intent) + specific intent (intent to kill, etc) If a mere intent to kill, not felony because no act EXC: law punishes for entertaining a criminal intention, i.e. impossible crime. Punished for criminal mind, even if you can't kill anymore, because the person you want to kill is already dead Criminal intent or preparatory act: not yet attempted felony. Homicide: intent to kill. Problem with prep act, not yet clear the specific intention. I.e. buying a knife wanting to kill. Going home, so angry just saying "papatayin ko yan" while cutting up onions. So not yet a felony, not attempted/frustrated/consummated. Because intent to kill not yet clear despite the statements. EXC: possession of picklocks, because these are designed to commit robbery. Even if not yet committing robbery, liable for preparatory act EXC: proposal to commit rebellion/conspiracy. Proposal if rejected is proposal, it's a preparatory act punishable. If accepted, then it becomes a conspiracy. GR: proposal conspiracy not punishable. EXC: rebellion, terrorism, treason, sedition SEDITION: no proposal, will be inciting Problem w prep act is if the offender went already to the place where crime was to be committed. Medyo alanganin na. kasi pagblili ng kustilyo, lason, no problem. But if after buying, they go to the place, medyo alanganin if nandun na siya. Take care about this. Kailangan lumutang yung clear intention to kill, clear intention to burn building. If hindi klaro, no attempted felony. o i.e. arson, brought gas, went to the place, poured gas onto the house. Is that attempted arson yet? NO. intention could be just to irritate, could be intention to burn. But not yet clear na susunugin niya o But if before he poured gas, he yelled putangina susunugin ko yan, went to the place, poured gas, and he has matches in his pocket. Combine statement with actions. Clear na yung intention to burn. Hence pwede na ATTEMPTED ARSON o But if no statement that he was gonna burn, poured gas, lit match, and he was gonna light up the gas but before he was able to drop match, he was caught. ATTEMPTED ARSON. Even without statement, all acts together show clear intent to burn o But if he poured gas, naglagay siya ng damit, poured gas, house is a bahay kubo, lit it up. FRUSTRATED ARSON. Frustrated stage: all acts of execution. Meaning pwede ka na umuwi, you already performed all acts of execution to burn. Kahit iwanan na yung mga damit, masusunog na yung bahay kubo. Lilipat siyempre yung apoy galing sa damit sa bahay kubo. Case of Valdez. Still upstanding because no SC decision overturning BUT can't apply Valdez principle to house made of stone. Di lilipat yung apoy sa semento, di masusunog yun. Can't apply Valdez principle either if bumabagyo. See people v. Bon/Vaughn? o I.e. inflicting mortal wound. Can go home na kasi tapos na yung acts. However eventually a doctor managed to cure and he didn't die. FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE. Performed all acts of execution. o Salamahang/Lamahang doctrine - Older stores, there are kahoy (bamboo fences?) surrounding store. Tinanggal na niya nun. Nahuli siya. The fact that he was removing the kahoy (bamboo?) intention was to go inside. Clear intention to enter/trespass. ATTEMPTED TRESPASSING. Prosecutor said attempted robbery. Sir: NAHHH. Could be the intention was just to go into house and watch a telenovela. Could be intended to kill, rape, etc. No clear intention to rob. Only clear intention to enter. If there's doubt, resolve doubt in favor of least liability. o i.e. bumunot ng baril. Was there clear intention to kill? Not yet. Could be intent to threaten, could be to hit someone with gun. o ATTEMPTED STAGE: overt act Overt act must be an act with specific criminal intent i.e. attempted homicide, to consider as overt act, must be committed with intent to kill. Intent to kill, consider the wount. General rule: if wound is non-mortal, minor wound, and he has a opportinuty to inflict a mortal would, it would not be attempted homicide. Why? Case of villanueva: fact that wound is minor, intention is clear to just inflcit a minor injury Despite opportunity to inflict mortal would or kill victim, he didn't. that's spontaneous desistance from inflicting a mortal wound. Since spontaneous desistance exists, hindi na clear yung intent to kill niya. BUT. If would is not mortal wound, if clear intent to kill. (i.e. accused killed two people immediately after, third person managed to run away) IF WOUND IS MORTAL, CLEAR INTENTION TO KILL. EXC: boxing, nabagok could have died, stopped boxing. Spontaneous desistance v. voluntary desistance Accused took off clothes, touched breast, licked vagina. Stopped because of mamboboso. Was it acts of lasciviousness or attempted rape? ATTEMPTED RAPE Spontaneous = outside factor, doesn't have to be police officer???? Voluntary = no outside factor???? Spontaneous is a defense in attempted felony. Not allowed in frustrated Spontaneous desistance from inflicting all acts of execution If frustrated stage na, spontaneous desistance no longer available as defense ARSON, whether there was partial burning, any kind of burning, as long as there's char/uling, partial burning is enough. Pag sinunog mo yung appliances, it's already arson. Pero sa totoo lang that is arson of personal property. Arson of personal property is punished under RPC, but higher penalty for arson of house. Rule now is arson of appliances now is under penalty for arson of house RAPE, no frustrated stage. To consummate, labia was touched by penis, already consummated crime of rape. Prior to the touching of the labia by penis, either attempted rape or acts of lasciviousness depending on intention of accused. If intent is sexual intercourse, rape. If lewd design, lasciviousness. If no lewd design, unjust vexation. If no lewd design, in public, slander by deed. Considering principle of proreo(?) resolving doubt in favor of accused. Convict of lesser liability, acts of lasciviousness. Dapat lumutang intention for sexual intercourse para attempted rape. If opportunity to have intercourse, pero di tinuloy, acts of lasciviousness. Because no intention for intercourse; spontaneous desistance. If opportunity to have intercourse was lost because may kagawad, or if victim ran away, and just attempted rape unless clear intent to have sexual intercourse. But if there was showing he was on top of victim trying to penetrate, and the victim was a child, accused was adult, but no evidence the labia was touched by penis, since no evidence, probably attempted rape. Attempting to penetrate, THUS, attempted rape. Also if penis was erect and there was kissing, there is already a clear intent to have sexual intercourse, attempted rate. Must be clear that penis was erect. Don't assume that the penis was erect, the situation must clearly describe that penis was erect. THEFT/ROBBERY. No frustrated stage PP v. Valenzuela - ability to freely dispose of the thing is not element of robbery Old rule: PP v. Dino. Important daw to bring out stolen property from house/mall/compound. Otherwise, frustrated theft bc lack of ability to freely dispose of thing Laurel v. Aburgara?? - asportation not element of thft/robbery. Asportation - taking away, carrying away. Wala nakalagay na carrying away/taking away. What's important is taking without consent. Once you take possession, consummated already. Santilla case - holdup, lagay yung pera sa lamesa, dumating pulis, di nakuha ng robber. Once money on the table, accused acquired dominion over money, constructive possession, thus frustrated robbery. But if you perform an act to take money, i.e. almost pickpocketing, or if holdup and they didn't give money, ATTEMPTED, didn't acquire property. Why not frustrated? Because all acts necessary for execution are simultaneous with consummation. EXC: robbery involving furniture, receptacles, aparador, need to remove it from the place because you have to take it out to be able to say you took possession of it. CORRUPTION OF PUBLIC OFFICER/DIRECT BRIBERY. No frustrated stage. Once there is an agreement, i.e. judge into yung 100k for you to render this judgment. Already consummated. No need to actually render the judgment. Judge is guilty of direct bribery. Private individual corruption. Offer of private official to pay 100k, rejected. No agreement. Thus judge not guilty of bribery. BUT private individual is liable for attempted corruption of public officer. Demand by judge of 100k, rejected. Private individual not guilty of corruption. Is judge guilty of attempt to commit direct bribery? NO. direct bribery is a formal crime. No attempted stage either. Element of bribery is agreement. Here no agreement, mere demand. Mere demand is diff from demand amounting to intimidation. Bigay ka ng pera or matatalo ka. That would already be intimidation = extortion. "give me money and you'll win this case" guilty ba of Sec 3(b) R.A. 3019? - NO Case of Soriano, and case of Perez Contract/transaction involves monetary consideration (project to construct, etc) But give me money to win case? - SC says not contract/transaction within R.A. 3019 ESTAFA Adjao/Adiao Airport. Kinuha belt, pinasok sa drawer niya. There was taking but no actual gain. Is the theft already consummated? YES. Theft is taking w intent to gain. Actual gain is not important Dominguez Salesclerk selling goods. After selling goods, didn't put cash in register. Was arrested. Estafa requires deceit + actual damage. Intent to cause damage is not enough. In this case, no actual damage, because he was caught before there was actual damage done. This was during the time before estafa wasn't differentiated from theft via misappropriation Consummated qualified theft ito ACTUAL DAMAGE NECESSARY FOR ESTAFA FALSIFICATION OF PRIVATE DOCUMENTS Elements Falsified a demand letter, brought it to victim, victim gave money, thus there was damage. When was the falsification consummated? Causing damage to 3P or intent to cause damage to 3P is an element Thus consummated at the time he falsified the doc, with INTENT to cause damage to 3P. All elements there, even if damage was manifested only upon giving of 3P the money CONSUMMATED from time of falsification, not from time 3P suffered the damage FORMAL CRIME Physical injury is a formal crime accdg to Regalado No attempted or frustrated stage Gusto niya bulagin, hinagisan ng asido, di naman nabulag pero nagkaron ng injury for 30 days. Is he liable for attempt to commit serious physical injury? NO. Crime is less serious phsyical injury Compare with light felony. light felony as a general rule is punishable. EXC 1: not punishable if stage is attempted or frustrated if attempted/frustrated crime against persons/property, then it's punishable EXC 2: not punishable if offender is accomplice or accessory Acts of lasciviousness Coup d'état Rebellion But if clear there was agreement for rebellion/coup, d'état, it's not an attempt but a CONSPIRACY to commit rebellion/coup d'état, prior to the actual commission of crime of rebellion/ coup d'état
MODE OF EXTINGUISHING CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Justifying and exempting circumstance. o Circumstance must be present at the time of the commission of the crime o All modifying circumstances must be present at time of commission of the crime o EXC: confession and surrender, which happen after. o Anything else that takes place after commission cannot be a defense unless listed under modes of extinguishing criminal liability Extinguishment - Must take place after commission of crime o Listed in Art 89 + decriminalization, plus (1) discharge by reason of probation (2) o Marriage extinguishes crimes against chastity But rape was reclassified from chastity to crimes against persons. Marriage still extinguishes criminal liability arising from rape not because of Art 89, but Art 266 Is reelection a defense for malversation/3019/bribery? - NO because election happens after consummation of the crime. Not listed as mode for extinguishing criminal liability o But with administrative liability, old rule (condonation doctrine) pwede, by people reelecting you the people is condoning that officer. BUT in case of Binay, SC abandoned condonation doctrine because (1) it's incompatible with constitutional provision on public accountability, (2) plus art VII, pardoning power belongs to the president, not confined to crim but all kinds including admin offense. Power of president to grant pardon whether crim/admin exclusively belongs to president. Prospective effect. If reelection happened before binay case, can still use condonation doctrine. But if after promulgation of decision, then cannot use condonation anymore. Novation is a mode of extinguishing civil liability BUT not mode to extinguish criminal liability o Pero you can consider it as defense if you use novation as a mode of preventing criminal liability o Extinguish v. prevent o Extinguish - mode must happen after the consummation of the crime o Prevent - mode must happen before the crime o Important that the contract must be an element of the crime. When there's a novation prior to misappropriation, that novation novating contract of agency into contract of loan/sale will prevent misappropriation o I.e. estafa thru appropriation, receiving property, trust. One way to prove that he received the property in trust in via contract of agency. If prior to the actual misappropriation, the contract of agency was converted into a contract of sale/loan, that is a mode of preventing criminal liability. Even if loan not paid, can't be source of criminal liability because consti prohibition against imprisonment for nonpayment of debt. o People v. Neri, if there's novation, complainant is estopped from claiming the agency when agency has been converted into a loan transaction. If loan/sale, then elements of estafa will not concur + constitutional provision against imprisonment for non-payment of debt o i.e. person stole thing, then just said ok bayaran ko na lang. NOT EXTINGUISHED. Contract not important element of theft, there was no contract in the first place that could be novated. o Estafa through false pretense. NOT EXTINGUISHED/PREVENTED. Contract not element of this crime. o Novation as defense must happen BEFORE commission of crime o i.e. borrowed a bike, sold to Pedro, later said to bike owner hey I'll buy the bike na lang. Initially contract of commodatum (Jan 1), on Feb 1 sold to Pedro written contract of sale, on March 1 talked to bike owner that he will buy the bike contract of sale, thus there was a novation. BUT can't use novation as defense because by the time contract was novated on March 1, crime had already been committed on Feb 1. o First marriage, second marriage, then there was a declaration of nullity. Still, bigamy was consummated because when 2nd marriage was contracted when first marriage was subsisting. Thus a later declaration of nullity is not a defense. BASES: (1) declaration of nullity that happens after consummation of crime because of GR that anything happens after commission not a defense (2) if declaration of nullity of 1st marriage as defense in bigamy, it's not a mode of extinguishing crim liability but a mode of PREVENTING criminal liability. See Art 40 FC. Declaration of nullity of prior marriage can only be invoked prior to next marriage via a judicial declaration that first marriage is null and void (3) if declaration of nullity of 1st/2nd marriage is used as defense, then will render law on bigamy nugatory because accused will make sure all marriages are defective o Bar technique when it comes to bigamy Identify the dates, because usually sabog yung pagsusulat, sinasadya nila. Organize it first so that when you answer, sigurado kayo. Can declaration be used as a defense? ANSWER: NO. Basis: the 3 reasons enumerated above. Even if declaration of nullity is based on lack of license/affidavit of cohabitation, rule is the same. Not a valid defense. o 1st marriage --> 2nd marriage --> filing a case for bigamy. Defense: at time of 2nd marriage, filed a case for declaration of nullity NOT A DEFENSE o 1st marriage --> 2nd marriage --> FC effectivity --> filing case of bigamy Defense: Art 40 FC not yet in existence CAN'T USE AS DEFENSE. ground: 1 and 2 above. + according to Peralta, Art 40 FC is procedural, thus should be given retroactive effect. Must comply even if law is not yet existent at the time. Campanilla disagrees with Peralta but it's an SC decision so yeah. o 1st marriage (just signed marriage contract, no marriage celebration) --> 2nd marriage --> filing bigamy case SC: this is an exception to the rule. If no marriage celebration, there is no marriage at all. You can raise that as a defense even if there's no declaration of nullity, because mere signing of marriage contract has no legal effect, no semblance of legality Declaration of nullity not needed because there was no marriage at all. o TINATANONG SA BAR TO : 1st marriage --> 2nd marriage--> 3rd marriage. Pero at the time he entered 3M, 1st wife (1W) was already dead. What is the crime committed? Bigamy with respect to the 2nd marriage on the basis of the 1M. Because at time he entered 2M the 1M was still subsisting. But not liable for bigamy involving the 3M on the basis of the 1M. Because at time he entered 3M, 1M was not already existing because 1W is already dead. Liable for bigamy involving 3M on basis of 2M, because 2M was still subsisting despite it being bigamous, because no declaration of nullity of 2M. o 1st marriage --> 2nd marriage --> declaration of nullity of 2nd marriage --> filing of bigamy case Not a defense. Ground: 1 & 3. ** will discuss other Modes tomorrow
If there is a graduated factor, you will graduate the penalty.
ISLAW Under law prohibiting death penalty, if penalty is reclusion perpetua, even if reduced to perpetua from death, the accused is not entitled to apply to parole, meaning ISLAW is not available Ex. Crime is rape, penalty is RP, accused is minor so reduce to temporal. Is islaw applicable? Yes. Because graduated penalty is reclusion temporal, islaw is applicable Graduating factors o Stages. If felony is frustrated, one degree lower. Attempted, two degrees lower o Nature of participation. Accomplice, one degree lower. Accessory, two degrees lower o Aggravating factors o Privileged mitigating circumstance (1)Incomplete testification/exemption - applying art 69, reduce penalty 1 or 2 degrees lower. Discretionary (2) o Requisites in art 11 and 12, if majority requisites are met, the circumstance is incomplete testification o If minority is present, this is ordinary mitigating circumstance, minimum period o If P.I.C., subject to the o Occasion where there are only 2 requisites in Art 11 and 12, like performance of duty + death. Majority is one or two, o Incomplete accident - not all elements of accident are present. Art 67 o Incomplete minority - o Minority is either exempting circumstance or PIC Exempting circumstance - absolute - 15 years old or below because with or without this element he is not liable. What is age of criminal incapacity? 15 years old or below. With or without discernment, free from criminal liability. Conclusive presumption that he acted without discernment, Conditional - above 15 under 18 - if he acted with discernment, not an exempting circumstance but a PIC. Ignore art 68, one degree lower. Here disputable presumption that he acted without discernment (Jose v. People). Incumbent upon prosecutor must prove he acted with discernment, overcome presumption. o Minority of the offender of the rule. Under rule. Statutory rape - under 12 Crime with aid of minor - under 15 Infanticide - under 3 o But 11 and 12, not using under rule. 15 years or below. Line that distinguishes is the 15th birthday o Child is 15 years old on 15th anniversary of his day of birth. If you go beyond that time, (1 hour after birthday for example), then CIC not absolute o 2 rules on application of indivisible and divisible penalty. Art 63 and 64 o Indivisible (1) perpetua (2) death (3) perpetua to death o If not among the three above, then automatically divisible Thus reclusion temporal to death is divisible Minimum is temporal; medium is perpetua; maximum is most o AS IT IS RULE Penalty is perpetua to death Courts that apply the penalty as it is regardless of modifying circumstance People v. Ramos. Crime is rape. Penalty is perpetua. May surrender. Will it be considered as special mitigating circumstance for surrender and confession? NO. special mitigating circumstances are only for divisible penalties o AGGRAVATING CIRC RULE If there is an aggravating circumstance, the courts shall apply the greater penalty that is death. Otherwise, lesser 2 mitigating 1 aggravating, 1 mitigating will remain. Eh walang aggravating so People v. Tacbobo. Parricide, penalty perpetua to death. Confession surrender. Can you consider special mitigating circumstance? NO. special mitigating is under art 64, only for divisible. o Rules of application on divisible penalty (1) graduation (a) priority rule Graduating factor is priority. Organize first before u answer re: penalties. When u know what the penalties are, that’s when you implement (b) indivisible penalty reduced to divisible penalty Bihira, but applicable pa rin rules on divisible penalties because it becomes temporal (2) proper imposable period GR: if aggravating circumstance max, if no, med, if mitigating, minimum Consider: multiple aggravating circumstance Regardless of number/nature aggravating circumstance, only one effect: apply penalty in maximum period. You can't go higher. Offset rule Combine aggravating and mitigating like PEMDAS EXC: four exceptions. If not in exceptions, apply GR (1) special mitigating circumstance (a) requisites (i.) two or more mitigating circumstance (ii.) No aggravating circumstance (iii.) penalty must be divisible penalty (b) effects (i) penalty next lower in degree rule Ex. Confession surrender passion illness. Regardless of number of mitigating circumstance, just impose penalty next lower in degree Two or MORE mitigating circumstance is in the codal. Can't go beyond next lower in degree (THIS HAS BEEN ASKED IN THE BAR) (ii) Legrama v. Sandiganbayan Legrama formula Ex. Confession surrender Confession plus surrender, use to reduce mayor to correccional. There are no remaining mitigating circ to reduce correccional to minimum. Thus apply correccional in its medium Ex. Confession surrender passion illness Use confession and surrender to go to correcional, then use the passion and illness to apply correccional in minimum (2) special aggravating Effect: ordinary aggravating, apply penalty in max one degree higher Diff is ordinary is subject to offset, but special aggravating is not subject to offset rule Art 160 RPC, quasi-recidivist, convicted prisoner. Commit homicide, make confession. Penalty is temporal. Under 160, apply penalty in max. but under Art 64 reduce because of confession. What to apply, 160 or 64? - Art 160 because more specific, art 64 is general. All Art 14 is ordinary aggravating EXCEPT taking advantage of public position which is a special aggravating circumstance. (3) complex crime Under Art 48, two rules (1) consider penalty for most serious component. (2) apply penalty in max period Consider two rules separate and independent from each other. This is a special aggravating circumstance similar to quasi-recidivism, NOT subject to offset rule If combo of 1st exemption and AND 2nd exemption OR 3rd exemption Use 1E to go down one degree lower Then use 2E or 3E to apply reduced penalty in max period. If this is the situation, wala na Legrama formula because that one talks about medium and minimum. (4) Art 365 Court will exercise sound discretion without regard to Art 64 (3) fixing the penalty: (a) determinate Fix within the range of the proper imposable period i.e. temporal + confession, then apply temporal minimum. (b) indeterminate (1) max - max within range of proper imposable period. (2) minimum - within range of penalty next lower in degree. Purpose: to determine when accused will be eligible to apply for parole RPC - minimum, medium, maximum period ISLAW - minimum penalty, maximum penalty BAR QUESTION: if penalty is more than 6 years, crime is not probationable. 3 - 6y 1 day. Sole function of fixing minimum penalty is for parole. For probationary, consider maximum penalty, which is 6Y 1D therefore not probationable. Threefold rule + 40 year limitation rule. Whatever is lower, apply that. Parole and islaw. Parole not applicable for life imprisonment, death, perpetua. If pnealty is too low, parole and islaw not applicable. Because if 3 days penalty only why bother appying parole to pres. If penalty doesn't exceed 1 year, parole islaw not applicable. If 1 year and 1 day, then applicable ang islaw If arresto mayor, menor, destierro, islaw not applicable Correccional in medium or max - islaw applicable UNLESS other reason not to apply, i.e. habitual, QR, etc Correccional in minimum though - … alanganin. 6 M 1 D to 2 Y 4 M. People v. Ginhawa (2005 and 2015* bar by Justice Callejo). If correccional minimum, court has option to apply or not apply islaw. Option 1: fix penalty at 1 year or less but within the period, ex 7 months. Then islaw not applicable Option 2: fix penalty at 1 year or 1 day or more basta within period, ex 2 years. Then islaw is applicable because more than one year
Cowin and Company, Inc. v. Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, Ray Marshall, Secretary of Labor, U. S. Department of Labor, /R, Intervenor, 612 F.2d 838, 4th Cir. (1979)