CRIMREV-Prosec-Garcia-Notes-Updated.pdf - CRIMINAL LAW...

Unformatted text preview: CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2017 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW Prof. Victoria C. Garcia 4A, A.Y. 2016-2017 Second Semester Transcribed by the SuperSeniors: Maria Aurora Mon, Carmel Liria, Gretchen Sy, Anne Rose De Guia, Ma. Althea Raypon, J-ann Javillonar & Maria Maica Angelika Roman Updates by: Bongalon, David, Garvida, Liwanag, Maranan, Melosantos, Mina, Navarez, Santos Some parts taken from CrimRev Notes by the Hizon Twins and 2016 Golden Notes: Criminal Law Consolidated and jurisprudence added by: Magculang GENERAL PRINCIPLES Criminal Law - branch of division of law which defines crimes, treats of their nature and provides for their punishment Crime - act committed or omitted in violation of the law. Also refers to any act committed or omitted in violation of a public law or compelling law. 2 injuries are committed: 1. Injury committed against a person civil indemnity is awarded to the offended party on the heirs personal injury against the private offended party 2. Injury committed against the state Punishment is imprisonment Social injury against the state for the disturbance of peace Note: for every crime committed, it is more of an offense against the state rather than against the private offended party. Example: A hit B. B sustained a fatal wound but he survived. Thereafter, B filed frustrated homicide. The fiscal found probable cause. In the information filed by the fiscal, the title is People of the Philippines vs A. The trial continued and the judge found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt. >The first penalty of the judge is imprisonment due to social injury. Aside from this, B will pay a civil indemnity. (Terms)Crime may be a: 1. FELONY - act/omissions punished by the Revised Penal Code 2. OFFENSE - punished by a special law 3. ACTS/INFRACTIONS - punished by ordinances, local legislation Note that all three are under the umbrella term of Crime. Legislative Department - power to enact penal laws. The President may issue penal executive orders and penal presidential decrees if there is a law enacted by Congress delegating such power to the President only in times of emergencies Limitations to the Power of Congress to enact Penal Laws: 1. Penal law must be general in application otherwise it would be violative of the Equal Protection Clause. It must be applied equally to all. a. Must not partake the nature of an ex post facto law. It is a law which makes an act criminal although at the time it was committed it is not yet so. b. Not a Bill of Attainder. It is a law which punishes the accused without the benefit of due process without giving him the opportunity to be heard and to present his side. 2. Must not impose cruel, unusual punishment and excessive penalties. (e.g. Congress cannot amend article 308-309 death, by saying that henceforth that any who commit theft will be given death. This is unusual punishment so it is prohibited.) BAR 2015 Distinguish Ex-post facto law from Bill of Attainder Page 1 of 221 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2017 E: [makes an act criminal although at the time it was committed it is not yet so.] B: punishes the accused without trial Characteristics of Penal Laws [GTP]: 1. Generality Persons to whom criminal law shall apply 2. Territoriality Place where penal law shall be applied 3. Prospectivity Time when it shall apply 1. GENERALITY Penal laws shall be applied to all persons on being within the Philippine territory whether they are Filipino Citizens or foreigners regardless of any of their personal circumstances. Applicable to all so long as within the Philippines Applies to non-citizens since while they are within the Philippines, they are given protection in the same way that the government protects its own citizen Exceptions to the GENERALITY characteristic: a) Generally Accepted Principles of PIL Heads of state, chief of state and other diplomatic heads such as ambassadors and public ministers are immune from the criminal jurisdiction of the country where they are assigned. Since they are immune, they cannot be arrested, prosecuted or punished. (Diplomatic Immunity from Suit). *consuls - not among those who enjoy the diplomatic immunity from suit GR:, consuls are subject to penal laws of the country where they are assigned. XPN: When there is a treaty or an agreement between the home country of the consul and the country where he is designated stating that the consul is immune from the criminal jurisdiction of the host country Example: A is an employee in ADB, a foreigner economist. A Filipino filed an oral defamation against the foreigner economist. The DFA issued a letter and protocol to the court which states that ADB and PH has an agreement that the ADB economist is immune from suit. The SC held that it was erroneous that there was a decision immediately to dismiss the case without adducing any evidence, without informing the fiscal. SC ruled that diplomatic immunity is only applied in the exercise of one's function, but in this defamation case, it immunity will not lie. Evidence first must be gathered to determine if the act was done in the exercise of one's functions. [see Liang v. People, G.R. No. 1256865, 28 January 2000] Q: A is an Italian Diplomat/Ambassador. From his hotel xxxxx (sorry malabo talaga po). Since his bodyguards were not yet ready, he decided to drive his car by himself. He drove the car however, he hit a pedestrian. The latter died. Can A be prosecuted for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide? A: The said Italian Ambassador cannot be prosecuted. He enjoys Diplomatic Immunity from Suit. Hence, he cannot be arrested, prosecuted and punished. Q: If the Italian Ambassador arrived at the NAIA Terminal 1. He has two (2) attache cases. The sniffing dogs were trained to sniff dangerous drugs and the dogs were following him, which means he has in possession of dangerous drugs. So the NAIA personnel confiscated the cases, and when they opened it, it contains drugs in the amount of more or less three-hundred million Pesos. Can he be prosecuted for illegal possession/importation of dangerous drugs? A: Yes. Diplomatic Immunity from Suit is not absolute, it is subject to the exception that the act must be done in the performance of his function. Page 2 of 221 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2017 Because the carrying of dangerous drug is not in any way connected in the performance of his functions b) Laws of Preferential Application Laws which exempt certain individuals from criminal prosecution e.g. members of Congress are immune from libel, slander and defamation for every speech made in the House of Congress during a regular or special session [Section 11 of Art. VI of the 1987 Phil. Consti.] Senator X delivered a privilege speech in Senate. Sen. X called Sen. Y a womanizer, a smuggler. These are slanderous remarks to Sen. Y. But Sen. Y cannot file a case of Slander or Libel against Sen. X because these slanderous remarks were made in the halls of congress while the congress is in regular or special session. Hence, he cannot be prosecuted. Many heads of state arrived here for the 2017 Ms. Universe. Among these was Pres. X, of X state. He found Ms Portugal very attractive and invited her to a date in a hotel. Afterwards, Pres. X raped her. Can Pres. X be prosecuted for rape? A: YES. Immunity is NOT absolute, limited only to official functions. As rape is outside of the functions of the head of state, Pres. X may be prosecuted here. Q: Pres. X was driving his car on his way to the pageant, and he hit a pedestrian, who died. May Pres. X be prosecuted? Philippine courts XPN: Art. 2 (RPC) 3. PROSPECTIVITY Penal laws shall only be applied from the time of effectivity. Penal laws cannot be given retroactive application GR: Penal laws shall apply prospectively XPN: Art. 22 (RPC) Penal laws may be given the retroactive effect if favorable to the accused provided that the accused is not a habitual criminal Example: X was arrested for Vagrancy under Art. 202 of RPC in March 2013. In July 2013, a new law enacted by Congress decriminalizing vagrancy which amende Art 202. This new law will apply in favor of X because this new law is favorable to him and X is not a habitual criminal. The Anti-Subversion Law had long been repealed. Congress recently revived this law and makes it criminal for being a member of the CCP-NPA. Upon the passage of this new law, the police officers immediately went to the house of X, a known member of CCP during his younger years and he was arrested. He challenged this new law, what are his grounds? 2. TERRITORIALITY Penal laws shall be applicable only within the Philippine jurisdiction including its atmosphere, internal waters, etc. A: First, his argument is that this new law is in violative of the prospectivity characteristic of penal law. This is violative because penal law cannot be given retroactive application except that if the law expressly provides and it is favorable to him. Hence, it cannot be given retroactive application. Second, he can invoke the provision in the constitution against ex post facto law. It is an ex-post facto law because at the time that he was a member of CCP, there was no law punishing subversion. Therefore, he cannot be prosecuted under this new law. GR: Crimes committed outside the Philippine jurisdiction cannot be [prosecuted] under Another exception to the prospectivity principle is A: No. This time he is performing official functions, thus he cannot be prosecuted in Philippine courts. Page 3 of 221 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2017 when the Special Penal Law expressly provides for its retroactivity. An example of which is section 68 of R.A. 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006) the law expressly provides that it will apply to all persons that have been convicted and already serving sentence provided that they are minors at the time of promulgation. Philosophies under the Crim. Law System: 1. Classical/Juristic 2. Positivist/Realistic Basis of criminal Basis of criminal activity is human free liability is man's social will environment. Man is a moral "All men are born creature which good, they only become evil due to understands right the influence of the from wrong community." When he commits a Crimes are a social wrong he phenomenon voluntarily does the same, therefore, he shall be ready for the consequences of his acts. Purpose of penalty is Purpose of penalty is retribution. rehabilitation Evolves from the Offender is a socially maxim "an eye for sick individual who an eye.." therefore, need to be corrected for every crime not to be punished. committed, there is a corresponding penalty based on the injury inflicted on the victim. Determination of Determination of penalty is done mechanically since penalty is done on the the punishment is case to case basis proportionate to the severity sustained by the victim. Emphasis is on the Emphasis of the law is crime and not on the on the offender and not criminal, on the to the offense offense and not on the great regard to the offender. human element of the crime takes into consideration why the offender committed the crime 3. Mixed/Eclectic Philosophy Crimes which are Crimes which are heinous/obnoxious in social/economicnature- classical positivist Page 4 of 221 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2017 RPC - Classical philosophy Merely copied from Spanish..French espoused classical Although RPC is molded with classical philosophy, the amendments are geared toward the positivist philosophy e.g. a) INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW - once served the minimum of his penalty, eligible for parole (rehabilitation) b) PROBATION LAW - 6 years and below, probation report to probation officer c) RA 9346 -abolished death penalty THEORIES/RULES CONCERNING CRIMINAL LAW: 1. Utilitarian Theory/Protective Magno v. CA Purpose of punishment is to protect the society from actual/potential wrong doing Even in violation of special penal laws, wherein intent does not matter, courts should see to it that punishment shall only be imposed to actual/potential wrongdoers. Potential wrongdoer was not Magno rather it was Mrs. Teng. She should not have deposited the check upon withdrawing the machineries. She was the one who acted in bad faith. SC: If Magno will be the one to be punished, then it will bring about opportunism. Magno was acquitted on the ground of good faith. Magno v. CA & People, G.R. No. 96132, 26 June 1992 Facts: Magno was charged with 4 counts of violation of BP 22 before the RTC QC. Magno, in the process of putting up a car repair shop, and wanted to procure car repair service equipment from Mancor Industries. Magno told Mancor’s VP, Corazon Teng, that he had no sufficient funds, the latter reffered Magno to LS Finance, advising its VP, Gomez, that Mancor was willing to supply the equipment if LS Finance could provide Magno credit facilities. The arrangement went through on condition that petitioner has to put up a warranty deposit equivalent to (30%) of the total value of the pieces of equipment to be purchased, amounting to P29,790.00. Since Magno could not come up with such amount, he requested Gomez on a personal level to look for a third party who could lend him the equivalent amount of the warranty deposit, however, unknown to Magno, it was Teng who advanced the deposit in question, on condition that the same would be paid as a short term loan at 3% interest. As part of the arrangement, petitioner and LS Finance entered into a leasing agreement whereby LS Finance would lease the garage equipments and petitioner would pay the corresponding rent with the option to buy the same. After the documentation was completed, the equipment were delivered to petitioner who in turn issued a postdated check and gave it to Joey Gomez who, unknown to the petitioner, delivered the same to Corazon Teng. When the check matured, Petitioner requested through Joey Gomez not to deposit the check as he (Magno) was no longer banking with Pacific Bank.To replace the first check issued, petitioner issued another set of six (6) postdated checks. Two (2) checks dated July 29, 1983 were deposited and cleared while the four (4) others, which were the subject of the four counts of the aforestated charges subject of the petition, were held momentarily by Corazon Teng. Subsequently, petitioner could not pay LS Finance the monthly rentals, thus it pulled out the garage equipments. It was then on this occasion that petitioner became aware that Corazon Teng was the one who advanced the warranty deposit. Petitioner with his wife went to see Corazon Teng and promised to pay the latter but the payment never came and when the 4 checks were deposited they were returned for the reason "ʺaccount closed."ʺ Magno was convicted for violations of BP Blg. 22 on the four (4) cases in RTC Quezon City. The Page 5 of 221 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2017 Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the said decision. Issue: Whether Magno is guilty of violating BP 22 Ruling: Appeal GRANTED. By the nature of the "ʺwarranty deposit"ʺ amounting to P29,790.00 corresponding to 30% of the "ʺpurchase/lease"ʺ value of the equipments subject of the transaction, it is obvious that the "ʺcash out"ʺ made by Mrs. Teng was not used by petitioner who was just paying rentals for the equipment. It would have been different if petitioner opted to purchase the pieces of equipment on or about the termination of the lease--‐‑purchase agreement in which case he had to pay the additional amount of the warranty deposit which should have formed part of the purchase price. As the transaction did not ripen into a purchase, but remained a lease with rentals being paid for the loaned equipment, which were pulled out by the Lessor (Mancor) when the petitioner failed to continue paying possibly due to economic constraints or business failure, then it is lawful and just that the warranty deposit should not be charged against Magno. To charge Magno for the refund of a "ʺwarranty deposit"ʺ which he did not withdraw as it was not his own account, it having remained with LS Finance, is to even make him pay an unjust "ʺdebt"ʺ, to say the least, since petitioner did not receive the amount in question. All the while, said amount was in the safekeeping of the financing company, which is managed, supervised and operated by the corporation officials and employees of LS Finance. Petitioner did not even know that the checks he issued were turned over by Joey Gomez to Mrs. Teng, whose operation was kept from his knowledge on her instruction. This fact alone evoke suspicion that the transaction is irregular and immoral per se, hence, she specifically requested Gomez not to divulge the source of the "ʺwarranty deposit"ʺ. It is intriguing to realize that Mrs. Teng did not want the petitioner to know that it was she who "ʺaccommodated"ʺ petitioner'ʹs request for Joey Gomez, to source out the needed funds for the "ʺwarranty deposit"ʺ. It is in simple language, a scheme whereby Mrs. Teng as the supplier of the equipment in the name of her corporation, Mancor, would be able to "ʺsell or lease"ʺ its goods as in this case, and at the same time, privately financing those who desperately need petty accommodations as this one. This modus operandi has in so many instances victimized unsuspecting businessmen, who likewise need protection from the law, by availing of the deceptively called "ʺwarranty deposit"ʺ not realizing that they also fall prey to leasing equipment under the guise of a lease-purchase agreement when it is a scheme designed to skim off business clients. For all intents and purposes, the law was devised to safeguard the interest of the banking system and the legitimate public checking account user. It did not intend to shelter or favor nor encourage users of the system to enrich themselves through manipulations and circumvention of the noble purpose and objective of the law. Under the utilitarian theory, the "ʺprotective theory"ʺ in criminal law, "ʺaffirms that the primary function of punishment is the protective of society against actual and potential wrongdoers."ʺ It is not clear whether petitioner could be considered as having actually committed the wrong sought to be punished in the offense charged, but on the other hand, it can be safely said that the actuations of Mrs. Carolina Teng amount to that of potential wrongdoers whose operations should also be clipped at some point in time in order that the unwary public will not be falling prey to such a vicious transaction Corollary to the above view, is the application of the theory that "ʺcriminal law is founded upon that moral disapprobation . . . of actions which are immoral, i.e., which are detrimental (or dangerous) to those conditions upon which depend the Page 6 of 221 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2017 existence and progress of human society. This disappropriation is inevitable to the extent that morality is generally founded and built upon a certain concurrence in the moral opinions of all. . . .That which we call punishment is only an external means of emphasizing moral disapprobation the method of punishment is in reality the amount of punishment.” Thus, it behooves upon a court of law that in applying the punishment imposed upon the accused, the objective of retribution of a wronged society, should be directed against the "ʺactual and potential wrongdoers."ʺ In the instant case, there is no doubt that Magnoʹs four (4) checks were used to collateralize an accommodation, and not to cover the receipt of an actual "ʺaccount or credit for value"ʺ as this was absent, and therefore petitioner should not be punished for mere issuance of the checks in question. Following the aforecited theory, in Magnoʹs stead the "ʺpotential wrongdoer"ʺ, whose operation could be a menace to society, should not be glorified by convicting Magno. Furthermore, the element of "ʺknowing at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment, which check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficie...
View Full Document