Basic Principles in Criminal Law

Basic Principles in Criminal Law

 

Definitions

            Criminal Law – “that branch or division of law which defines crimes, treats of their nature, and provides for their punishment

            Crime – an act committed or omitted in violation of a public law. For bidding or commanding it

 

Characteristics

1.     GENERAL

-        Criminal law is binding on all persons who live or sojourn in Philippine territory (Art. 14, NCC)

o   EXCEPTIONS: “except as provided in the treaties and laws of preferential application

2.     TERRITORIAL

-        Criminal laws undertake to punish crimes committed within the Philippine territory

-        AS A RULE: penal laws of the Philippines are enforceable only within its territory

o   Art.2 of RPC – the provisions of said code shall be enforced within the Philippine Archipelago, including its atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone

o   EXCEPTIONS: those who: (1) should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship; (2) should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippines or obligations and securities issued by the Government of the Philippines; (3) should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into the Philippines of the obligations and securities mentioned in the preceding number; (4) while being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of their functions; (5) should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations, defined in Title One of Book Two of the RPC

3.     PROSPECTIVE

-        A penal law cannot make an act punishable in a manner in which it was not punishable when committed

-        Crimes are punished under the laws in force at the time of their commission

o   EXCEPTION: when the new statute dealing with the crime establishes conditions more lenient or favorable to the accused

§  EXCEPTIONS TO THE EXCEPTION: (1) where the new law is expressly made inapplicable to pending actions or existing causes of action; (2) where the offender is a habitual criminal under Rule 5, Article 62, RPC

 

Underlying Philosophies

1.     Classical Theory

-        Basis of criminal liability: human free will

-        Purpose of penalty: retribution\

-        “Man is essentially a moral creature with an absolutely free will to choose between good and evil, thereby placing more stress upon the effect or result of the felonious act than upon the man, the criminal himself

-        Endeavors to establish a mechanical and direct proportion between crime and penalty

-        There is a scant regard to the human element

 

2.     Positivist Theory

-        “man is subdued occasionally by a strange and morbid phenomenon which constrains him to do wrong, in spite of or contrary to his volition

-        “Crime is essentially a social and natural phenomenon, and as such, it cannot be treated and checked by the application of abstract principles of law and jurisprudence nor by the imposition of a punishment, fixed and determined a priori; but rather through the enforcement of individual measures in each particular case after a thorough , personal and individual investigation conducted by a competent body of psychiatrists and social scientists

*RPC continues to be based on the principles of the Classical theory, although some provisions have positivistic tendencies (i.e. punishment of impossible crimes, juvenile delinquency, etc.)

 

Theories/Rules Concerning Criminal Law

Doctrine of Pro Reo

-        Penal laws should always be construed liberally in favor of the accused and strictly against the State

-         

Lenity Rule

-        Whenever a penal or provision of penal is susceptible of 2 interpretations, the one lenient to the accused which will bring about acquittal and the other one strictly against the accused which will bring about conviction, the lenient interpretation shall prevail

-        “In case of doubt, rule always for the accused or in favor of the accused”

Equipoise Rule

-        Whenever the evidence of the prosecution is equally balanced with the evidence of the defense, the scales of justice shall be tilted towards the accused

-        Prosecution has the burden of proving conviction beyond reasonable doubt

 

Utilitarian Theory

-        Purpose of punishment is to protect the society from actual/potential wrong doing

 

 

Read case: Magno v CA [210 SCRA 471 June 26, 1992]


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Nagkakaisang Maralita ng Sitio Masigasig, Inc. v Military Shrine Services-Philippine Veterans Affairs Office, Dept. of National Defense [G.R. 187587 June 5, 2013]

Constitutional Law II -  Right to Information Facts: President Carlos P. Garcia, through Proclamation No. 423, reserved parcels of land in Municipalities of Pasig, Taguig, Parañaque, Rizal, and Pasay for military reservation known as Fort Bonifacio. Later on, President Marcos issued Proclamation No. 208 and 2476 (amending Proclamation No. 243) which provided for the exclusions of areas for military reservation such as Lower Bicutan, Upper Bicutan, and Signal Village. Moreover, President Marcos inserted “P.S. includes Western Bicutan” at the very end and did not include such portion in the publication of said amending Proclamation. Contention arose in this case as to the Petitioners herein case and the Western Bicutan Lot Owners Association, Inc (WBLOAI) stating that their lots, falling within Western Bicutan, is already excluded from the military reservation (and so it is no longer a public land) as per President Marcos’ Proclamations. They used the “P.S. includes Western Bic...
Read more

Aznar v Commission on Elections [G.R. 83820 May 25, 1990]

Constitutional Law II - Citizenship Facts: Aznar, the Provincial Chairman of Cebu PDP-Laban, filed a petition to disqualify Emilio “Lito” Osmeña, respondent, when he filed his Certificate of Candidacy for the position of Provincial Governor of Cebu Province on the ground that the latter is not a Filipino citizen but rather an American Citizen. Aznar presented the following to show that Lito is an American citizen: 1.       Application for Alien Registration Form 2. Alien Certificate of Registration 3. Pernit to Re-enter the Philippines 4. Immigration Certificate of Clearance On the other hand, Lito alleged that he is a Filipino citizen: 1.       He is the legitimate child of a Filipino 2. He is a holder of a valid and subsisting Philippine Passport 3. His continuous residency in the Philippines since his birth 4. His being a registered voter in the Philippines Contention arose in this case as to the citizenship of Lito and if...
Read more

Pascual, Jr. v Board of Medical Examiners [L-25018 May 26, 1969]

Constitutional Law II - Self-Incrimination Clause Facts: Petitioner, Arsenio Pascual, Jr., was charged by Salvador Gatbonton and Enriqueta Gatbonton for alleged immorality or malpractice through an administrative case. In such administrative case, at the initial hearing the complainant’s (Gatbontons’) counsel announced to present Pascual, Jr, the one who was charged in the case, to be his first witness. Thereupon, Pascual, Jr objected invoking his constitutional right to be exempt from being a witness against himself, or his right against self-incrimination. And so, the Board of Examiners, herein respondents, said that Pascual, Jr be once again called upon to testify at the next hearing unless he secure a restraining order from a competent authority Contention arose in this case as Petitioner Pascual, Jr alleges that he cannot be compelled to take the witness stand in an administrative case proceeding wherein he is the one charged in the case and that the Board of Examiners failed ...
Read more