Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Paragraph 11
1. A approached B. A told B that he was angry with his teacher. B told A that he will give him a
reward if he kills the teacher. A killed the teacher. A reported to B and was paid by him.
a. It is not aggravating because the primary consideration was not the money. A was
already angry at the teacher.
2. A approached a standby, B. A told him that to kill mayor M and he will pay him 1M. B told A that
he wanted a higher price. A accepted the agreement. B killed M.
a. It is aggravating.
Paragraph 12
1. A and B were walking and saw a mental retard dancing. A and B suddenly got gas and lighted the
mental retard up. A and B said, “sige sayaw lang, igiling mo”. Mental retard died.
a. It is not aggravating because there was no intent to kill.
b. The fire must be used to kill the person intentionally.
2. Law student L saw the beautiful maid of his parents. During night time, when L’s parents were
asleep. L knocked at the door of the maid. The maid refused saying, “hindi pako handa
magkarelasyon”. The day after, L asked his medstudent friend for drugs, “pare meron kaba dyan
ung pampatulog”. Medstudent gave her some. L student gave a drink to the maid however it was
more than the suggested grams. Maid died of overdose.
a. It is not aggravating because there was no intent to kill the maid.
Paragraph 13
1. A and B had a fistfight. A is bigger than B. A was at the receiving end of the punches. A told B,
“Putang ama ka, hanggang lingo nalang ang buhay mo”. B answered, “Sige”. A forgot about
everything. A went to MOA on Sunday. A saw B. The friends of A reminded him, “ Oi si B oh.
Diba sabi mo hanggang lingo nalang buhay nyan?”. A got a knife and killed B.
a. It is not aggravating. There was no evident premeditation.
Service
.
Sacrifice
.
Excellence
Angelo
J.
Logronio
Criminal
Law
1
-‐
Justice
Sandoval
–
Lecture
Mini-‐cases
(Post-‐midterms)
Paragraph 14
2. A, B and C were wearing Coat and Tie and they were in the street. A taxi driver saw them and
told himself, “siguradong malaki tip nito.” Pinara ni ABC ung taxi. ABC asked taxi driver, “manong
kamusta na byahe nyo magkano na kinita nyo”. Taxi driver replied, “abay okay naman, nakaka
apat na libo nako”. A,B,C declared hold up.
a. It is aggravating.
3. A wore baseball cap and handkerchief. A holdup his neighbor.
a. It is aggravating.
4. A wore baseball cap and handkerchief. A declared hold up in B’s house. The handkerchief fell
down.
a. It is aggravating. The act was already commenced.
5. Pedro wore baseball cap and handkerchief. Pedro went to aling Tentay’s house and declared
hold up. Aling Tentay replied, “Ano kaba pedro, anong hold up hold up? Pinagsasabi mo?”
a. No it is not aggravating.
6. A dressed himself in charcoal and raped B.
a. It is aggravating.
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 16
Service
.
Sacrifice
.
Excellence
Angelo
J.
Logronio
Criminal
Law
1
-‐
Justice
Sandoval
–
Lecture
Mini-‐cases
(Post-‐midterms)
1. A met his mortal enemy, B, along the street. A gave a sporting smile at B. When their paths were
about to cross. A stabbed B. B died.
a. It is aggravating even though the attack was frontal. No chance to retaliate.
2. A went to his mortal enemy B’s house. A shouted, “putang ama ka, lumabas ka dyan tagaan
tayo”
a. B went down. B slipped and fell down. A hacked B at the back.
i. It is not aggravating because it was preceded by words.
b. While B was going down, A shot him dead.
i. It is aggravating although it was preceded by words.
3. A had evident premeditation against E. A waited for E. A planned on how to kill E. E entered a CR
and saw his twin brother, E-1 there. E-1 left the CR first. A shot E-1 believing it was E. (Very
important case, according to Justice Sandoval)
a. There was no evident premidation in killing E-1.
b. However, it is aggravating for there was treachery in the crime. There is treachery even in
mistake of identity.
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 21
ARTICLE 15
Relationship
1. S went to his father’s house. The door was locked so S passed through an open window and
stole money.
a. This is robbery NOT theft because S entered an opening not intended for entry.
Service
.
Sacrifice
.
Excellence
Angelo
J.
Logronio
Criminal
Law
1
-‐
Justice
Sandoval
–
Lecture
Mini-‐cases
(Post-‐midterms)
b. Therefore, it is NOT mitigating.
2. The mistress went to her paramour’s house and said, “putangama ka bigyan moko pera kundi
papatayin kita. Bubuntisin moko, di ka naman magbibigay ng pera.”
a. This is robbery NOT theft (Robbery by force or intimidation)
b. Therefore, it is NOT mitigating.
3. A assaulted her younger sister B, with no intent to kill but inflicting less serious physical injuries
a. It is mitigating.
4. B assaulted her older sister A, with no intent to kill but inflicting less serious physical injuries
a. It is aggravating.
5. A assaulted his brother in law, which was the husband of his younger sister. Furthermore, the
said brother in law was having an illicit relationship with A’s elder sister
a. Taking consideration the “other conditions present”, it is aggravating.
6. Brother committed malicious mischief against her sister but they are not living together.
a. Because of the comma placing, the law provides that it is not only brothers-in-law and
sisters-in-law but also brothers and sisters that need to live together to be mitigated
under Article 15.
b. Therefore, it is NOT mitigating.
Intoxication
1. A, B, C, and D conspired to kill X, they had a round of drinks before proceeding to do the act.
a. The intoxication was done subsequent to the plan. It is aggravating.
1. A graduated Summa Cum Laude from the Ateneo, and continued studied until achieving Masters
and Doctorate Decrees. A killed B.
a. The high degree of education was not used to commit the crime
b. Therefore, it is NOT aggravating.
2. A opened 5 bank accounts B1, B2, B3, B4, B5. A deposited 200k each bank account totaling to
1M all in all. A issued a 100k pay to cash check from B1 and deposited it to B2. A issued a 100k
pay to cash check from B3 and deposited it to B4. After several repeat of the procedure, A gained
the status of a “valued client”. A pooled all the money to B5 worth 2M Pesos. A issued a 2M
check from B5 asking from exempt from 3 clearing days.
a. A used his superior intellect in committing the check-kiting estafa.
b. Therefore, it is aggravating
Service
.
Sacrifice
.
Excellence
Angelo
J.
Logronio
Criminal
Law
1
-‐
Justice
Sandoval
–
Lecture
Mini-‐cases
(Post-‐midterms)
Low Degree of Instruction and Education
1. A who only finished Grade 1 was charged with perjury for signing something. A said, “sabi ng
kapit-bahay kong LLB pirmahan ko daw eh”
a. It is mitigating.
2. A raped 3 women. When asked he answered, “Judge masama mo bang mangrape? Di ko po
alam eh. Grade 1 lang tinapos ko”
a. It is not mitigating
3. A committed the crime of treason. A was unschooled.
a. Treason is a crime related to love of country
b. Therefore, it is not mitigating.
ARTICLE 16 and 17
1. A, B, C, and D drank together and planned to kill X. They talked about when, how and what
weapon to be used in the crime. Thereafter they proceeded to the house of X. A told B, C, and D
“Mga pare, dito nako sa yard. Ako na magbabantay kung sakaling may reresbak dyan kay X”. A
was left on the yard. The rest proceeded to the Main door and then they opened it. B told C and
D, “Mga pare dito nalang ako sa Main door, ako magbabantay dito sakaling may reresbak kay X”.
B was left near the Main Door. Upon entering, C told D, “dito nalang ako sa mga ibang kwarto
babantayan ko”. D killed X.
a. D is obviously a principal by direct participation
b. A, B, and C are also principals by direct participation because they all conspired and
agreed to the commission of the crime, they went personally to the crime scene and they
all acted together towards the commission of the crime.
2. A passed by his Brother-In-Law’s house. A told his brother-in-law, “hoy, pare, painom ka naman”.
The brother-in-law was not in a good mood replying to A, “yang dagat nalang laklakin niyo”. A
replied “gago ka pala e”. brother-in-law went inside the house and went out with a spear. Brother-
in-law and A fought over spear. Seeing the commotion, the wife of the brother-in-law saw and
hacked A with a bolo.
a. The wife is obviously a principal by direct participation
b. The brother-in-law is not a principal by direct participation because there was no
agreement, conspiracy nor consent. (Requisites: conspiracy and presence)
Service
.
Sacrifice
.
Excellence
Angelo
J.
Logronio
Criminal
Law
1
-‐
Justice
Sandoval
–
Lecture
Mini-‐cases
(Post-‐midterms)
3. Nagsuntukan si A and B. A inflicted slight physical injuries on B, P came and assisted A to
escape.
a. P is not liable because it was just a light felony and he was an accessory to the crime.
1. A approached B, “kilala mo ba yan si X? papatayin ko yan, gago yan eh” B replied, “sige kupal
nga yan, bigyan kita 100k patayin mo”. A killed X and got the 100k bounty.
a. B is not a principal by inducement because A would still kill X without the 100k.
b. Price must be the primordial reason
2. The father of Ferdinand Marcos held out words of command to him, “anak kaw na pumatay dyan.
17 ka pa naman di ka makukulong”. Ferdinand Marcos killed the newly elected assemblyman.
a. The father is a principal by inducement because of the words of command and his
ascendancy
3. A throws a knife at B then targets his revolver at B, “patayin mo yan si X”. B killed X
a. A is a principal by inducement by uncontrollable fear/irresistible force
1. A, B, and C agreed to kill X. A held the arm of X. B held the other arm of X. C stabbed X.
a. According to the SC, A and B are principals by indispensable cooperation. C is principal
by direct participation
b. However, according to the great J. Sandoval, A, B and C are principals by direct
participation because they all conspired and proceeded with the killing.
2. A, B, and C agreed to rape X. A held the arms of X. B held the feet of X. C raped X.
a. According to the SC, A and B are principals by indispensable cooperation. C is principal
by direct participation
b. However, according to the great J. Sandoval, A, B and C are principals by direct
participation because they all conspired and proceeded with the crime.
3. A found a check worth 100k and his boardmate, DBM, was actually the deputy bank manager of
the drawee bank. A told DBM, “may nakita akong 100k na check kaso vintage date na”. DBM told
A to encase the check. A went to the drawee bank to encash it. A went to the teller and the teller
submitted the check to DBM which was the deputy bank manager. Even though the assistant
checker did not verify that the check had funds, DBM still noted the check can be encashed. A
and DBM split the 100k between them.
a. A is a principal by direct participation in the crime of estafa
Service
.
Sacrifice
.
Excellence
Angelo
J.
Logronio
Criminal
Law
1
-‐
Justice
Sandoval
–
Lecture
Mini-‐cases
(Post-‐midterms)
b. DBM is a principal by indispensable cooperation. The defining factor was that what DBM
did was of different nature.
Conspiracy is an important factor among principals, except by inducement by employing irresistible force.
No conspiracy = don’t consider as principals.
ARTICLE 18
1. A approached B, “meron kabang baril dyan papatayin ko si X. B replied, “oh eto baril, tama yan
kupal si X eh”. A killed X with the gun.
a. B is an accomplice because he knows the intent of A
2. A approached B, meron kabang baril dyan”. B replied, “bakit?”. A answered back, “wala lang”. B
gave the gun to A. A killed X with the gun.
a. B is not an accomplice because he does not know the intent of A
3. A approached B, “meron kabang baril dyan papatayin ko si X. B replied, “ay medyo sira tong baril
ko eh samahan nalang kita”. In the crime scene B told A “idiin mo ung pagkasa para gumana”. A
killed X afterwards.
a. B is liable as principal NOT accomplice.
4. A approached B, “meron kabang baril dyan papatayin ko si X. B replied, “oh eto baril, tama yan
kupal si X eh pero pag nagkabualyasuhan wala ako dyan ha”. Upon nearing the house of X, A
saw a lot of people and decided to use a knife instead. A threw a knife through a window killing X.
a. B is NOT an accomplice because there is no direct relation between the act of lending
the gun and the act of A killing X
5. A approached B, “meron kabang baril dyan papatayin ko si X. B replied, “oh eto baril, tama yan
kupal si X eh pero pag nagkabualyasuhan wala ako dyan ha”. 12 midnight na di parin nakikita ni
A si X pero nakita nya bigla si Y na mortal nya ring kaaway. Pinatay nya si Y gamit ung baril.
a. B is NOT liable as an accomplice because there was no direct relation between the act of
lending and the act of A killing X
ARTICLE 19
PARAGRAPH 1
1. T stole the watch of W and sold the watch to B who bought it. Is B an accessory?
a. No if he has no knowledge
b. If T told B that he stole it yet B still bought it, he is an accessory because he benefitted
from the effects of the crime and assisted the offender to benefit from the crime
Service
.
Sacrifice
.
Excellence
Angelo
J.
Logronio
Criminal
Law
1
-‐
Justice
Sandoval
–
Lecture
Mini-‐cases
(Post-‐midterms)
c. Moreover B violated PD 1612 (Anti Fencing Law) (“Fencing” is the act of any person who,
with intent to gain for himself or for another, shall buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire,
conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any other manner deal in any
article, item, object or anything of value which he knows, or should be known to him, to
have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft.)
i. What’s important in fencing is the knowledge, if you know its stolen, you are
liable, if you do not know that its stolen, you are not liable
ii. In J. Sandoval’s opinion, B is criminally liable for both Art 19 and PD 1612.
Therefore, he is charged twice, goes to jail twice.
2. K kidnapped B. K asked X to negotiate with the parents of B for 1M or else B will be killed in 2
days. X went to the parents of B and relayed the message and got the 1M. X went back to K. K
gave X 100k.
a. K is the principal
b. X is the accessory because he profited from the effects of the crime.
3. R rented the warehouse of O. R used the warehouse as a garage for his stolen vehicles. O came
to know of it.
a. O is liable for violation of PD 1612
4. T stole TV, Ref, Laptop, Jewelry worth 500k. T sold ONLY the TV to B.
a. Under PD 1612, B is liable for the whole 500k even if it was only the TV that he bought
b. Under Art 19(1), B is liable only for the price of the TV
PARAGRAPH 2
1. K killed D. K approached A, “Pare tago mo to para di ako madiscover”. A buried the corpse of D
a. A is an accessory for concealing the body of the crime
2. A and B were very close friends. A killed X with a knife. X lay dead. B subsequently placed a knife
on the hand of X who was lying dead to make it appear like self-defense
a. B is an accessory for concealing the body of the crime
3. A wife, W, had an illicit affair with her compadre C without the knowledge of the husband H. They
were in the house of W and H. Pag di tumitingin si H, kinikiss ni C si W. Until nakita ni H silang
dalawa. H got a knife and attacked C. However, H was killed by C. It was all witnessed by W and
H’s 11 year old daughter D. W told D, “ako na kakausap dito, wag ka magsasalita ah”. The
policemen came and asked what happened. W replied that there came burglars but they got
away. Later on, D revealed to the police what actually happened.
a. W is an accessory for concealing the body of the crime
Service
.
Sacrifice
.
Excellence
Angelo
J.
Logronio
Criminal
Law
1
-‐
Justice
Sandoval
–
Lecture
Mini-‐cases
(Post-‐midterms)
4. I killed A. I approached F, the daughter of the mayor. I asked F to hide the gun used to kill A. F
replied affirmatively.
a. F is an accessory for concealing the INSTRUMENT.
b. GUN = INSTRUMENT
5. I carnapped a car and asked F, the daughter of the mayor to hide the car. F replied affirmatively.
a. F is an accessory for concealing the EFFECTS of the crime
b. CAR = EFFECTS
TECHNICALITIES
1. A,B and C robbed a house, and stole some properties. C sold all the properties robbed to X, X
knowing it to be stolen still bought the property
a. X is an accessory because his acts were AFTER THE CRIME. X profited and he knows
the crime committed
2. K was with X when they kidnapped B. K told X to negotiate with the parents of B. X successfully
negotiated with the parents of B. K and X divided the money from the parents.
a. X is a principal of the crime.
b. X cannot be an accessory in additional to him being the principal.
c. X is punishable only as principal of the crime
PARAGRAPH 3
Service
.
Sacrifice
.
Excellence
Angelo
J.
Logronio
Criminal
Law
1
-‐
Justice
Sandoval
–
Lecture
Mini-‐cases
(Post-‐midterms)
i. Mayor is not liable under Article 19 (3)
ii. However, he is liable under PD 1829 for obstruction of justice.
b. K approached mayor and asked for help. Mayor helps K in escaping.
i. Mayor is liable under Article 19(3)
ii. Mayor is liable under PD 1829
iii. According to Justice Sandoval, he will go to jail twice.
c. G approached private individual, P. P helps G in escaping
i. P is liable under Article 19(3)
3. R raped V. R went to Private individual, P. P assisted R in his escape.
a. P is not liable under Article 19(3) because rape is not one of the crimes enumerated.
b. However, P is liable under PD 1829
4. K killed D. Private Individual P assisted K in his escape. The trial judgment was that K committed
homicide and not murder.
a. P is not liable under Article 19(3) because homicide is not one of the crimes enumerated.
5. K killed D, G assisted in his escape. The trial judgment was that K committed murder. However, K
was proven to be insane.
a. P is liable under Aritlce 19(3). As long as the crime committed was murder, even if K was
acquitted, P is still liable as an accessory.
6. Divided SC Case according to Justice Sandoval
a. A and B were riding in tandem when they passed X’s yard, A shot X, killing him. They
were charged with murder in conspiracy with each other. A was able to hide for 5 years.
However, B was caught. B was found guilty as an accessory to the crime. B was held
th
assisting A in his escape. After the 5 year, A was arrested. However, during the
proceedings, no one pointed at A. J acquitted A. Subsequently, B filed for writ of habeas
corpus.
i. B is still liable. Whoever was the killer, as long as it was proven that the crime
was murder and that B assisted the killer in his escape, B is still liable as an
accessory
ii. Moreover, B is also liable under PD 1829
ARTICLE 20
1. Ivler Jason was charged with murder. Ivler Jason escaped and hid in his mother’s house. Mother
denied to the NBI that Ivler Jason was there.
Service
.
Sacrifice
.
Excellence
Angelo
J.
Logronio
Criminal
Law
1
-‐
Justice
Sandoval
–
Lecture
Mini-‐cases
(Post-‐midterms)
a. Mother is covered by Article 20
b. However, Mother is held liable under PD 1829
Article 71
• Penalties
o Death
–
indivisible
o Reclusion
Perpetua
–
indivisible
(People
vs
San
Lucas)
o Reclusion
Temporal
–
12
years
1
day
–
20
years
o Prision
Mayor
–
6
years
1
day
–
12
years
o Prision
Correccional
–
6
months
1
day
–
6
years
o Arresto
Mayor
–
1
month
1
day
–
6
months
o Destierro
6
months
1
day
–
6
years
o Arresto
Menor
1day
to
30
days
Service
.
Sacrifice
.
Excellence
Angelo
J.
Logronio
Criminal
Law
1
-‐
Justice
Sandoval
–
Lecture
Mini-‐cases
(Post-‐midterms)
1. Ordinary
Mitigating
Circumstances
a. 1
Ordinary
Mitigating
Circumstance
=
1
lower
period
(i.e.
medium
to
minimum)
b. Ordinary
Mitigating
Circumstances
are
offset
by
Aggravating
2. Privileged
Mitigating
Circumstances
a. 1
Privileged
Mitigating
Circumstance
=
1
lower
degree
(i.e.
PM
to
PC)
b. Privileged
Mitigating
Circumstances
cannot
be
offset
by
Aggravating
c. 1st
two
Mitigating
Circumstances
under
Article
13
are
privileged
(incomplete
self-‐defense
and
below
18
years),
the
rest
are
ordinary
3. Mitigating
Circumstances
can
lower
your
penalty
up
to
the
lowest
period
of
the
lowest
degree
of
penalty
(e.g.
From
PM
to
Freedom)
ii. Aggravating
1. Aggravating
Circumstances
a. 1
Aggravating
Circumstance
=
1
higher
period
(i.e.
medium
to
maximum)
b. Aggravating
Circumstances
are
offset
by
Ordinary
Mitigating
Circumstances
2. Aggravating
Circumstances
cannot
go
higher
than
the
current
degree
(i.e.
If
penalty
is
PM,
can
go
only
as
high
as
maximum
penalty
of
PM,
cannot
go
to
the
next
level)
Service
.
Sacrifice
.
Excellence
Angelo
J.
Logronio
Criminal
Law
1
-‐
Justice
Sandoval
–
Lecture
Mini-‐cases
(Post-‐midterms)
2. Therefore
the
judge
can
get
the
minimum
term
from
the
range
of
6
months
1
day
–
6
years
a. If
the
judge
sets
the
minimum
term
for
6
months
and
1
day
and
the
accused
served
the
said
period
in
good
behavior,
he
shall
be
eligible
of
parole
3. When
ISL
doesn’t
apply
(Straight
Penalty)
a. When
penalty
imposed
is
death
penalty
or
life
imprisonment
i. It
is
important
to
note
that
it
is
life
imprisonment
and
not
reclusion
perpetua
1. Reclusion
perpetua
–
After
30
years,
eligible
for
parople
2. Life
imprisonment
–
no
definite
extent
by
special
law
and
no
accessory
penalty
b. Max
Penalty
not
more
than
1
year
c. When
the
crime
is
under
security
of
state
crimes
(treason,
rebellion,
misprision
of
treason,
sedition,
espionage
etc.)
d. Piracy
e. Habitual
Delinquents
f. Evaded
service
of
sentence
i. A
was
convicted
with
homicide,
while
serving
sentence,
he
escaped.
Committed
homicide
again
1. Considered
Evaded
Service
ii. Concubine
C
had
an
illicit
relation
with
Husband
H.
Wife
W
knew
of
the
illicit
relationship,
W
demanded
C.
C
was
found
guilty.
H
was
jailed
and
C
was
sentenced
by
destierro.
C
entered
the
prohibited
area
of
destierro
and
committed
homicide
1. Considered
Evaded
Service
2. However,
it
is
already
held
that
ISL
does
not
apply
to
destierro.
Therefore,
regardless,
no
ISL
application.
WEIRD
WEIRD
CASE
BY
SANDOVAL!
Service
.
Sacrifice
.
Excellence
Angelo
J.
Logronio
Criminal
Law
1
-‐
Justice
Sandoval
–
Lecture
Mini-‐cases
(Post-‐midterms)
iii. X
escaped
confinement.
Guilty.
14
years
of
imprisonment.
However
he
was
confined
in
the
NCM(place
for
mentally
challenged)
instead.
After
2
days,
X
escaped
NCM.
1. NOT
Considered
Evaded
Service
2. Mental
Hospital
Patient
not
a
Prisoner
iv. X
was
17
years
old.
Guilty.
8-‐14
years
imprisonment.
However,
he
was
confined
in
the
Manila
Youth
Rehab
instead.
X
escaped,
and
committed
another
crime.
1. NOT
Considered
Evaded
Service
4. Special
Laws
a. Must
not
go
beyond
the
minimum
and
maximum
limits
set
by
special
law
b. X
committed
a
crime
under
a
special
law
which
said
law
attaches
a
punishment
of
1
–
5
years.
i. X
shall
have
a
penalty
of,
for
example
1
year
and
2
days
or
4
years
and
11
months
Probation Law
1. Probation
Law
is
the
disposition
by
which
an
accused
having
been
sentenced
and
convicted
of
a
crime
will
not
go
to
jail
because
even
though
he
committed
a
crime,
he
cannot
be
considered
a
criminal
2. Doctor,
D
went
to
his
clinic.
When
he
was
on
his
way
home,
3
drunk
men
stopped
his
car
and
asked
for
drinking
money.
D
gave
the
drunk
men
500.
Drunk
men
was
enraged
and
wanted
more,
they
hit
D’s
car
and
ran
away.
D
alighted
his
car,
shot
one
of
them.
a. He
cannot
claim
self-‐defense
b. However,
he
will
not
go
to
jail
because
of
the
Probation
Law
3. What
the
judge
will
do
is
order
and
cause
investigation
via
Probation
Officer.
If
Probation
Officer
sees
that
his
family
is
good
(e.g.
Law
student
brother,
Med
student
sister,
parents
well
employed),
the
court
will
usually
approve.
If
the
petition
is
granted,
probation
will
be
granted
Service
.
Sacrifice
.
Excellence
Angelo
J.
Logronio
Criminal
Law
1
-‐
Justice
Sandoval
–
Lecture
Mini-‐cases
(Post-‐midterms)
for
1
year
or
so.
And
is
required
not
to
associate
with
criminals.
After
serving
the
1
year
or
so,
will
be
released.
4. Probation
Law
applies
only
to
penalties
not
more
than
6
years
a. One
mother
of
a
starlet
was
filed
with
10
counts
of
oral
defamation.
Sentenced
for
one
year
each
count.
10
years
total.
She
applied
for
probation.
Denied
by
Fiscal
who
said
that
the
penalty
was
more
than
6
years.
However,
SC
said
that
it
is
not
the
total
that
is
to
be
counted.
Rather,
the
maximum
term
of
one
crime.
In
the
current
case
it
is
just
one
year
for
one
crime.
Therefore,
he
can
be
granted
probation.
5. Instances
not
covered
by
Probation
Law
a. If
you
are
once
in
probation,
you
can
no
longer
be
qualified
for
another.
i. Accused
was
charged
of
robbery.
He
was,
however,
found
guilty
of
theft.
1-‐3
years
imprisonment.
However,
the
accused
had
no
money
to
bail.
Therefore,
he
was
jailed.
He
was
already
serving
2
years
sentence
in
jail.
He
wrote
a
letter
to
the
Judge
asking
for
probation.
Some
days
after,
he
wrote
a
letter
again
withdrawing
probation
because
he
wanted
to
reserve
his
probation
for
a
future
crime
(FUNNY
BARBS
STORY
OF
SANDOVAL!
Ha
ha
ha)
b. Violation
of
election
laws
c. Convicted
of
violation
of
anti-‐drugs
law
d. Sentenced
previously
of
more
than
200
pesos
fine
or
for
more
than
1
month
and
1
day
e. When
you
appeal,
you
are
no
longer
qualified
because
the
case
is
open
for
review.
i. Conflicting
examples
of
Sandoval
1. Accused
was
convicted.
He
wanted
to
APPEAL
the
penalty
not
the
decision
from
2-‐4
years
to
1
year
imprisonment.
Accused
applied
for
probation.
SC
held
that
that
regardless
of
the
reason,
as
long
as
it
is
considered
an
APPEAL,
one
is
not
qualified
for
probation
2. Accused
was
convicted
of
robbery.
RTC
sentenced
him
to
4-‐8
years
(cannot
apply
for
probation,
max
penalty
>
6
years).
Accused
appealed
and
CA
found
him
guilty
only
for
theft
and
punished
for
only
1-‐2
years.
Service
.
Sacrifice
.
Excellence
Angelo
J.
Logronio
Criminal
Law
1
-‐
Justice
Sandoval
–
Lecture
Mini-‐cases
(Post-‐midterms)
He
can
now
be
eligible
for
probation
provided
he
applies
15
days
from
the
receipt
of
the
decision
3. RTC
charged
X
with
Frustrated
Homicide.
Penalty
is
Prision
Mayor
(6.1
–
12)
therefore
no
probation.
Accused
appealed
to
CA,
affirmed
RTC.
However,
when
brought
to
SC,
it
held
that
it
was
only
Attempted
Homicide
and
not
Frustrated
Homicide.
Therefore
the
penalty
is
6
months
1
day
to
6
years.
Therefore,
he
is
entitled
to
probation.
4. However,
upon
verification
with
Justice
Sandoval,
1.
shall
still
hold.
Appeal
=
not
qualified
for
probation
1. A
committed
a
crime.
He
was
sentenced
to
4-‐8
years
of
imprisonment.
a. While
serving
the
sentence,
A
died.
i. Criminal
liability
will
be
totally
extinguished
ii. Civil
liability
will
be
against
the
testate/intestate
proceedings
Service
.
Sacrifice
.
Excellence
Angelo
J.
Logronio
Criminal
Law
1
-‐
Justice
Sandoval
–
Lecture
Mini-‐cases
(Post-‐midterms)
b. While
case
was
pending,
A
died.
i. Criminal
liability
will
be
totally
extinguish
ii. Civil
liability
may
be
filed
by
civil
action
of
the
offended
parties
1. A
committed
rebellion
in
1981.
He
was
granted
amnesty
in
1982.
He
committed
Sedition
in
1988.
a. He
is
not
a
recidivist.
2. A
committed
homicide.
He
was
granted
pardon
by
the
President
in
1982.
He
committed
murder
in
1988.
a. He
is
a
recidivist
3. A
was
held
guilty
of
homicide.
He
was
sentenced
8-‐14
years
of
imprisonment.
While
serving
sentence,
he
escape
the
prison
cell.
However
he
was
caught.
He
was
charged
for
evasion
of
service
of
sentence
and
a
penalty
of
1-‐3
years
of
imprisonment.
a. A
was
granted
absolute
pardon
for
the
crime
of
homicide.
i. He
will
still
serve
the
1-‐3
years
imprisonment
for
evasion
of
sentence.
4. A
committed
estafa
against
B.
B
granted
pardon
to
A.
a. The
trial
will
still
continue
however
there
is
no
civil
liability
5. However,
in
cases
of
SARA,
pardon
of
the
aggrieved
party
would
also
extinguish
the
criminal
liability
if
the
pardon
was
given
before
the
case
was
filed
in
court.
a. However, in cases of rape, if husband rapes his wife, and W grants H pardon, even if the
trial is going on, pardon still valid, and if H is already serving sentence, the Judge will
order the Director of Prisons to let H out of jail
Marriage
1. L committed estafa against M. While the case was pending, L and M got married.
a. The criminal case will continue, Marriage only extinguishes in SARA.
Service
.
Sacrifice
.
Excellence
Angelo
J.
Logronio
Criminal
Law
1
-‐
Justice
Sandoval
–
Lecture
Mini-‐cases
(Post-‐midterms)
2. X induced A, B, C to rape L. Place was provided by Y, an accomplice. Z assisted in the escape,
an accessory. A, B, C, X, Y, Z were all detained. A courted L and after some time they got
married.
a. The case against A, B, C, X, Y, Z will be dismissed.
3. S raped C. S and C got married. The court dismissed the case of rape. However, after some time,
S left C. C filed a motion to revive case. It reached the SC.
a. S is guilty of rape, the marriage was clearly not done in good faith
4. A raped L. It took time for A to court L. The case was already in the promulgation stage. A and L
got married before promulgation.
a. Judge will still order the dismissal of the case.
5. A raped L. A was held guilty and was serving sentence, when A and L got married.
a. Judge will disregard the judgment of conviction and order the release of A
6. A, B and C, took turns in raping L.
a. Marriage cannot extinguish in cases of multiple rape.
Civil Liabilities
1. A committed a crime and was held guilty of estafa and a crime under a special law.
a. 1 act caused the complaint, there will only be 1 civil liability
2. PD 603 – in case of insane minor, etc.
st nd rd
a. Civil liability – 1 = father, 2 mother, 3 guardian.
3. Z owns a movie house in Manila. Erap declared that no one shall open movie houses until 10am.
However, A opened his movie house at 7am because of a stampede of moviegoers. A killed B n
the moviehouse. A was sentenced imprisonment and to pay 50k pesos. However A was poorita.
a. The 50k civil liability will be borne by Z.
4. A stole the ring of B, sold it to C for 10k. C sold it to D for 20k. C did not know that A stole it. B
came to know of it and approached D.
a. B can get the property without payment
b. The system would be that D will run after C and C will run after A.
5. A stole the ring of B, sold it to C for 10k. C sold it to D for 20k. C did not know that A stole it. D
however, sold it in an auction. E bought it for 30k. B came to know of it.
a. B can get the property but with compensation of the 30k because it was bought in a
public auction.
Service
.
Sacrifice
.
Excellence
Angelo
J.
Logronio
Criminal
Law
1
-‐
Justice
Sandoval
–
Lecture
Mini-‐cases
(Post-‐midterms)
6. A killed B. RT ruled that A to pay the heirs of B 100k. Still not being able to pay, A died. B-1, heir
of B, approached A-1 heir of A saying, “akin na yung 100k na utang ng tatay mong mamamatay
tao”
a. A-1 has no obligation to pay
b. A-1 has no obligation to pay. However, A-1 paid B, someone told A-1 that he had no
obligation to pay B-1. A-1 went to B-1 and asked to be paid back.
i. B-1 doesn’t need to pay back. Considered natural obligation.
c. Supposed A-1 left 1M pesos to A-1. However, when B was alive, he had debt from A. A-1
claimed that the payment for said debt was to be deducted from the 100k liability.
i. A-1 is wrong.
d. Supposed A left 1M pesos to A-1. B-1 asked A-1 for the civil liability. A-1 was owed by B-
1. A-1 wants that he will not pay B-1 in exchange of the 100k civil liability borne by B.
i. A-1 is wrong. The debt between A-1 and B-1 constitutes “loan from of the heirs"
Service
.
Sacrifice
.
Excellence
Angelo
J.
Logronio