You are on page 1of 2

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW – SOLIS

AUGUST 14,2018

- to violate a law, there must be a law that exists


- US V. PABLO – Pablo shouldn’t have been convicted because there is no law that he violated.
There was a lacuna, there was a hiatus. When congress enacted the admin code, it replealed Act
1697 but SC wasn’t honest, wala talaga, naghanap lang talaga sila ng butas.  this is one
example that the SC is incorrect. But nonetheless this become part of the law of the land. The
supreme court is not final because it is correct  it is only considered infallible because it is final
(but it doesn’t mean its correct)
- People v Santiago – congress at anytime may change penal laws
- Laws can be modified, amended and repealed by congress but is limited by BOR
- Tanada v Tuvera – publication is required – condition sine qua non. Only the process of
publication may be changed by congress
- Pesigan v Angeles – ex post facto – bawal mga siz.
- BILL OF RIGHTS
- 3 characteristics of CL -> Generality – territoriality – prospectively
o Generality – criminal law is binding on all persons who live or sojourn in the PH
 Exemptions must be – (Liang v people) – apply strictly against the exception
o Territoriality – art 1 of consti.
 Art 2 of RPC – reflection of extra territoriality
 Creates havoc
 Extension of government/sovereignty
 US v Ah Sing : exception -> if u are invoking an exception, it would be always
strict against the application of exemption
o Prospectively –
- Immunity of diplomats and members of international organizations – Liang v People – THIS HAS
BEEN ASKED IN THE BAR EXAMS – CONSULS ARE NOT EXEMPTED MGA BESH.
- PROSPECTIVE APPLICATION: only for conducts after effectivity of the law
** habitual delinquent – art 62
** opposite – retroactive
** ex: retroactive – if it favors the accused
- NO COMPLEX CRIME OF REBELLION AND MURDER ETC  ABSORBED BY REBELLLION

NOPE U got lazy ( #4 to 5)

August 28, 2018

- Felonies are acts and omissions punishable by law


- Felony – RPC if special law then Crime
- The difference lies in the intent.
o There is no intent in fault (culpa)
- There must aways be an overt act
o But not every overt act is a crime
o Must be an act of execution, meaning it has to take part of an element or requisite
o Preparatory acts? Acts of execution?
o There must be voluntariness
- FREEDOM< INTELLIGENCE AND INTENT
o Must be absolute
- Intent is presumed -> if his overt acts are unlawful
- GF can be raised as a valid defense to twort/prove that there is no mens rea  case of people v
ah chong

September 2, 2018

- Once conspiracy is established the act of one becomes the act of all
o Everyone becomes a principal
- The law does not require direct proof
o It may be implied by the different acts of the accused
o It shows unity of design and purpose
o There is an attainment of a unified (?) goal
- IS IT EASY? To prove conspiracy?
o RTC should tread carefully
o Conspiracy is a dicey proposition
- US v Bautista: Treason can only happen during war
- UNITY OF DESIGN AND PURPOSE
o It doesn’t matter if only one did the stabbing
o It doesn’t matter if one only did cheering
o ALL OP DEM R CONSIDERED PRINCIPAL BY DIRECT CONSPIRACY

Sept 4 2019

IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES

- One who commits an IC incurs liability  but not a felony


- Unlawful agreesion – actual, imminent threat to life and limb
o There should be physica assault
o AS IN MAY DANGER MGA BEH
- THERE IS ALWAYS QUESTION IN SELF DEFENCE