Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3

Q: Buddy always resented his classmate, Jun.

One day, Buddy planned to kill Jun by mixing poison in his lunch. Not knowing where he can get poison, he approached another classmate Jerry to whom he disclosed his evil plan. Because he himself harbored resentment towards Jun, Jerry gave Buddy a poison, which Buddy placed on Jun's food. However, Jun did not die because, unknown to both Buddy and Jerry, the poison was actually powdered milk. What crime or crimes, if any, did Jerry and Buddy commit? A: Jerry and Buddy are liable for the socalled impossible crime because, with intent to kill, they tried to poison Jun and thus perpetrate murder, a crime against persons. Jun was not poisoned only because the wouldbe killers were unaware that what they mixed with the food of Jun was powdered milk, not poison. Criminal liability is incurred by them although no crime resulted, because their act of trying to poison Jun is criminal. Q: A person enters the dwelling of another. However, at the very moment of his entry and before he could do anything, he is already apprehended by the household members, can he be charged with attempted robbery? A: No. He can only be held liable for attempted robbery when he has already completed all acts performed by him directly leading to robbery. The act of entering alone is not yet indicative of robbery although that may be what he may have planned to commit. However, he may be held liable for trespassing. PENALTIES Complex Crime vs. Compound Crime (2004) Distinguish clearly but briefly: Between compound and complex crimes as concepts in the Penal Code. SUGGESTED ANSWER: COMPOUND CRIMES result when the offender committed only a single felonious act from which two or more crimes resulted. This is provided for in modified form in the first part of Article 48, Revised Penal Code, limiting the resulting crimes to only grave and/or less grave felonies. Hence, light felonies are excluded even though resulting from the same single act. COMPLEX CRIMES result when the offender has to commit an offense as a necessary means for committing another offense. Only one information shall be filed and if proven, the penalty for the more serious crime shall be imposed. Habitual Delinquency & Recidivism (2001) Juan de Castro already had three (3) previous convictions by final judgment for theft when he was found guilty of Robbery with Homicide. In the last case, the trial Judge considered against the accused both recidivism and habitual delinquency. The accused appealed and contended that in his last conviction, the trial court cannot consider against him a finding of recidivism and, again, of habitual delinquency. Is the appeal meritorious? Explain. (5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, the appeal is not meritorious. Recidivism and habitual delinquency are correctly considered in this case because the basis of recidivism is different from that of habitual delinquency. Juan is a recidivist ... Habitual delinquency, which brings about an additional penalty when an offender is convicted a third time or more for specified crimes, is correctly considered because Juan had already three (3) previous convictions by final judgment for theft and again convicted for Robbery With Homicide. And the crimes specified as basis for habitual delinquency includes, inter alia, theft and robbery. Q: E and M are convicted of a penal law that imposes a penalty of fine or imprisonment or both fine and imprisonment. The judge sentenced them to pay the

fine, jointly and severally, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. 1. Is the penalty proper? Explain. 2. May the judge impose an alternative penalty of fine or imprisonment? Explain. A: 1. Imposing the penalty of fine jointly and severally on the two convicted accused is not proper. The penalty should be imposed individually on every person accused of the crime. Any of the convicted accused who is insolvent and unable to pay the fine, shall serve the subsidiary imprisonment. The judge may not validly impose an alternative penalty. Although the law may prescribe an alternative penalty for a crime, It does not mean that the court may impose the alternative penalties at the same time. The sentence must be definite, otherwise, the judgment cannot attain finality (2005 Bar Question).

1.

Penalties: Fine or Imprisonment vs. Subsidiary Imprisonment (2005) E and M are convicted of a penal law that imposes a penalty of fine or imprisonment or both fine and imprisonment. The judge sentenced them to pay the fine, jointly and severally, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. Is the penalty proper? Explain. SUGGESTED ANSWER: The penalty is not proper. The two accused must separately pay the fine, which is their penalty. Solidary liability applies only to civil liabilities. May the judge impose an alternative penalty of fine or imprisonment? Explain. (4%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: No. A fine, whether imposed as a single or as an alternative penalty, should not and cannot be reduced or converted into a prison term. There is no rule for transmutation of the amount of a fine into a term of imprisonment. Penalties: Pecuniary Penalties vs. Pecuniary Liabilities (2005) Distinguish pecuniary penalties from pecuniary liabilities. (2%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Pecuniary liabilities do not include restitution, but include reparation of damages caused, the indemnification for consequential damages, as well as fines and cost of the proceedings. Pecuniary penalties include fines and cost of the proceedings. Penalties; Complex Crime of Estafa (1997) A was convicted of the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public document. Since the amount Involved did not exceed P200.00, the penalty prescribed by law for estafa is arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods. The penalty prescribed by law for falsification of public document is prision mayor plus fine not to exceed P5,000.00. Impose the proper prison penalty. SUGGESTED ANSWER: The proper penalty is ANY RANGE WITHIN prision correccional (six (6) months and one (1) day to six (6) years) as MINIMUM, to ANY RANGE within prision mayor maximum (ten (10) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years) as MAXIMUM. This is in accordance with People us, Gonzales, 73 Phil, 549, where It was ruled that for the purpose of determining the penalty next lower in degree, the penalty that should be considered as a starting point is the whole of prision mayor, it being the

penalty prescribed by law, and not prision mayor in its maximum period, which is only the penalty actually applied because of Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. The penalty next lower in degree therefor is prision correccional and it is within the range of this penalty that the minimum should be taken. Penalties; Homicide w/ Modifying Circumstance (1995) Homer was convicted of homicide. The trial court appreciated the following modifying circumstances: the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity, and the mitigating circumstances of passion and obfuscation, no intent to commit so grave a wrong, illiteracy and voluntary surrender. The imposable penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal the range of which is twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years. Taking into account the attendant aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, determine the proper penalty to be imposed on the accused. SUGGESTED ANSWER: It appears that there is one aggravating circumstance (nocturnity), and four mitigating circumstances (passion and obfuscation, no intent to commit so grave a wrong as that committed and voluntary surrender). Par. 4, Art. 64 should be applied. Hence there will be off-setting of modifying circumstances, which will now result in the excess of three mitigating circumstances. This will therefore justify in reducing the penalty to the minimum period. The existence of an aggravating circumstance, albeit there are four aggravating, will not justify the lowering of the penalty to the next lower degree under paragraph 5 of said Article, as this is applicable only if THERE IS NO AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE present. Since the crime committed is Homicide and the penalty therefor is reclusion temporal, the MAXIMUM sentence under the Indeterminate Sentence Law should be the minimum of the penalty, which is 12 years and 1 day to 14 years and 8 months. The MINIMUM penalty will thus be the penalty next lower in degree, which is prision mayor in its full extent (6 years and 1 day to 12 years). Ergo, the proper penalty would be 6 years and 1 day, as minimum, to 12 years and 1 day, as maximum. I believe that because of the remaining mitigating circumstances after the off-setting it would be very logical to impose the minimum of the MINIMUM sentence under the ISL and the minimum of the MAXIMUM sentence. Penalties; Mitigating Circumstances w/out Aggravating Circumstance (1997) Assume in the preceding problem that there were two mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstance. Impose the proper prison penalty. SUGGESTED ANSWER: There being two (2) mitigating circumstances without any aggravating circumstance, the proper prison penalty is arresto mayor (in any of its periods, ie. ranging from one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months) as MINIMUM to prision correccional in its maximum period four (4) years, two (2) months, and one (1) day to six (6) years as MAXIMUM. Under Art. 64, par. 5 of the Revised Penal Code, when a penalty contains three periods, each one of which forms a period in accordance with Article 76 and 77 of the same Code, and there are two or more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstances, the penalty next lower in degree should be imposed. For purposes of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty next lower in degree should be determined without regard as to whether the basic penalty provided by the Revised Penal Code should be applied in its maximum or minimum period as circumstances modifying liability may require. The penalty next lower in degree to prision correccional. Therefore, as previously stated, the minimum should be within the range of arresto mayor and the maximum is within the range of prision correctional in its maximum period. Penalties; Parricide w/ Mitigating Circumstance (1997)

A and B pleaded guilty to the crime of parricide. The court found three mitigating circumstances, namely, plea of guilty, lack of Instruction and lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong as that committed. The prescribed penalty for parricide is reclusion perpetua to death. Impose the proper principal penalty. SUGGESTED ANSWER: The proper penalty is reclusion perpetua. Even if there are two or more mitigating circumstances, a court cannot lower the penalty by one degree (Art. 63. par. 3, Revised Penal Code; People vs. Formigones, 87 Phil. 685). In U.S. vs. Relador 60 Phil. 593, where the crime committed was parricide with the two (2) mitigating circumstances of illiteracy and lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong, and with no aggravating circumstance, the Supreme Court held that the proper, penalty to be imposed is reclusion perpetua.