Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 10

CAMPANILLA CRIM

Thursday, November 15, 2018


8:06 AM

Prospectivity

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 Old penal code repealed by RPC.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old code repealed but re-enacted by new law.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

Вам также может понравиться