Transcript
Criminal Law I Notes By Judge Oscar Pimentel {source: http://elmerrandom.blogspot.com/2008/06/criminal-law-i-notes-by-judge-oscar.html) CRIMINAL LAW If you look at the book of Gregorio and the book of Reyes, the two books have a different definition of criminal law. In the book of Gregorio, it says that criminal law is a branch of municipal law. I do not know if you have seen that in the book of Gregorio. But in the book of Reyes, it is a branch of public law. Is there a difference? It used to be, in the old times, that when you speak of municipal law, it has an application…local application. Then, naturally, we became a Republic, etc., we became an archipelago composed of several islands so…they actually did not change the definition, they only corrected it. So, it became a branch of public law that defines crimes, treats of their nature and provide for their punishment. CRIME: FELONY v. OFFENSE Look, the word ―crime‖ is (shall we call it) very very important because a crime is not (shall we call it) only that which is punishable under the Revised Penal Code but it includes also those that are punishable under special laws. That is why we have a ―felony‖. A felony is one that is defined and punished for an act or omission that is punishable under the RPC. On the other hand, an ―offense‖ is an act or omission that is defined and punished under special laws or special penal laws. But then, there could be a mixture of (shall we call it) a felony and an offense. A single act may constitute a felony and at the same time an offense. Do you know of any (shall we call it) act or omission that is both a felony and at the same time an offense? ---silence — Let us see… Supposing a girl has a boyfriend (tuksuhan na…) eh, yang mga boys kasi eh, if a girl has a boyfriend eh medyo nag-iisip kaagad ng hindi maganda. Ok, a girl has a boyfriend. She knows that her boyfriend is a snatcher. Alam niya, but you know love knows no boundary. Love is blind and the lovers refuse to see. Okay…one afternoon this man went to see his girl friend and said, ―Darling, here is a new cellphone‖. So, the girl said, ―Talaga bang bago yan?‖ ―Oh, yes, eh kabibili lang nung lalaki sa tindahan yan nung makuha ko e so bago nga‖. (Laughter) All right. So, they parted ways. The girl went on her way but while she was there at Recto Ave formerly Ascarga, if you will still recall, nobody knows anymore where Ascarga is…its C.M. Recto. The girl suddenly remembered that she promised her siblings that that day she is going to buy a lot of food for them as one of her brothers let us say for example has recovered from an illness. She remembered about the cellphone because she had no money. She went to a side street in C. M. Recto. She met a man. She said, ―Pare, are you not the buyer of cellphones here?‖ ―Oh yes, I‘m the buyer.‖ ―I have a cellphone here..new ha…how much would this cost?‖ ―Oh well, let‘s see, about P1,500‖. ―Make it P2,000 naman‖. ―P1,500.‖ The girl is actually desirous of getting money. Anyway, her boyfriend can always bring her a cellphone anytime she wants. Just try to (shall we call it) stall the whole thing because the man might change his mind [medyo blurred, sorry]. However, here comes another man who asked the man who is buying the cellphone, ―Pare, may pinagbibili ka bang cellphone?‖ ―Just a moment, lumayo-layo ka lang. I have a transaction here. Just give me five minutes‖. ―Okay, I‘ll buy that phone -P1,500. Take it or leave it.‖ So, the woman agreed. She was paid P1,500. Then the man went to the person who was buying the cellphone and said, ―Okay, you want to buy this…P2,000‖ ―Okay‖. He agreed but it turned out that the person buying the cellphone, aside from being the owner of the stolen cellphone, is a policeman. The man who was buying the cellphone was arrested. The woman who sold the cellphone was arrested. Now, the woman said why are you arresting me. ―You profited from the commission of the crime.‖ Eh, the policeman was studying law at that time. Under Article 19 of the RPC paragraph 1, anyone who profits from the commission of any crime, etc., is an accessory. ―You profited from the commission of the crime of theft, etc. then you are an accessory‖. ―Aside from that,‖ the man said, ―you are a fence‖. ―How can I become a fence? I do not know what is fencing‖. ―No…anyone who with intent to g ain, shall deal in, shall sell, shall buy, shall deliver, etc., any personal property which has been derived from the crime of robbery or theft is considered a fence. The man was also arrested. They were brought to court, etc. Now, they said. ―You have to choose whether you are going to charge us under the RPC as a felony or you are going to charge us for the violation of the Anti- Fencing Law as an offense. The policeman said, ―Whether I file a felony, of which you are an accessory to the crime of theft or violation of the Anti-Fencing Law, would not matter because even a single act that was committed by you may constitute a violation of the RPC and may constitute also a violation of a special law. And both can be prosecuted at the same time and judgment can be rendered in both cases without you being placed in double jeopardy. That has been the ruling of the Supreme Court in several cases where a single act would constitute a felony and an offense at the same time. Even in the crime of (shall we call it) obstruction of justice. In paragraph 2, harboring, etc.,concealing, etc., a person has been customated, etc., of a crime, etc., or destroying evidence under pgh 3 or whatever…that person is liable as an accessory also under Article 19 and at the same time, he is also liable for obstruction of justice. Then, he may be prosecuted without him being placed in double jeopardy for both crimes. So, a single act may result to being a felony and at the same time an offense. You must have to remember that because there are times when what you know only is that if a person violates any provision of the RPC, concededly, you will say that he only committed a felony. But then, even that single act would constitute also an offense under a special law. There were so many. It used to be that illegal possession of firearms is still defined and punished under PD 1866. And that an illegally possessed firearm was used in the killing of another. There is only one act, the possession of the firearm which resulted in the killing of another but then during the time when PD 1866 was still in force, the crime of homicide may be prosecuted separately from the crime of illegal possession of firearms which is already passé or it is not anymore true because in RA 8294, illegal possession is already absolved in the crime of homicide and murder and in rebellion, treason, sedition and also attempted coup de etat. There is no such crime. Is there a crime of attempted coup de etat? Wala yun. I don‘t know how Sen. Revilla arrived at a (shall we call it) or his researchers arrived at a crime of attempted coup de etat. Even if the coup de etat is attempted or whatever, it is still coup de etat. Alright. So, you are now familiar with how to treat a felony, on how to treat an offense. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF CRIMINAL LAW But then, how about say for example violation of municipal ordinance. It is, of course, known to everyone that if any legislative body passes any ordinance, which is penal in nature, it will define the act that will be punishable and it will provide the penalty for the same. Just like an offense. Like just a felony. The only problem here that has been the subject of debates is whether violation of a municipal ordinance is a crime. I think that‘s not even in your book. Do you see a crime ? But it is not a crime because a crime has general application. Meaning to say that the two general characteristics of criminal law must be present in the crime, even the third. The two characteristics are generality and territoriality. Now, it would only mean that it is applicable to all those who sojourns or lives in the Philippines and that the act or omission that is punishable by law must have been committed within the territory of the Philippines or under certain exceptions in certain instances, it may apply to territories beyond our jurisdiction depending upon the circumstances, such as in an airship, a ship, etc., or even if the same is committed outside of the territory of the Philippines if it is a crime against the law of nations, or if, say for example, a case in regard to counterfeiting of currencies etc. or the introduction of those counterfeited currencies in the Philippines or instruments irrespective of the place where it was committed we have jurisdiction over those crimes or that felony. The problem there that would usually be of importance is said can you consider an ordinance a crime. No, it cannot be considered as a crime. Some of you will reason out that, well, a crime in order to become as such must be passed by law first. Meaning to say that there must be a law that must be passed by Congress or must be decreed by the President in cases when there is Martial Law or when the President is so authorized by the Constitution. But then, when you speak of an ordinance, it has only of local application. It is only good for a certain, definite and limited territory such as a town, a municipality or when the same is an ordinance of a province or a resolution of the province, it is protected (?) within the territory of that province or in the event that it is a (shall we call it) an ordinance of the Metro Manila Commission, then within the confines of the Metro Manila area. So, it has a local application and therefore it cannot be considered as a crime because a crime has a wider application meaning that it covers the entire Philippines, it covers all those who sojourns or lives in the Philippines. It may be an infraction of a (shall we call it) an ordinance, etc. but if there is a penalty being imposed for any act or omission committed by the offender, nevertheless, it is only of local application. It cannot apply to the next town. Supposing there is an ordinance in a town prohibiting the spitting in public places but the next town there is no such ordinance, so you can go to the other town and spit without being held liable for violation of the ordinance. Okay, hmmm. As I was saying, criminal law would also deal about its characteristics. The general characteristics of criminal law are three, that is, 1.) General in nature, 2.) Territorial and 3.) Prospective. I. GENERAL Now, there is no problem with generality except that, as you know, that by reason of treaties, conventions, committees, etc., there are certain persons that are exempted from criminal prosecution in our country, such as what, such as diplomat, etc., those who belongs to the diplomatic corps, including their entourage are (shall we call it) not supposed to be prosecuted in this country. But we have a problem in that respect, in RA 9156, that is, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. There is a provision there which says that it is an aggravating circumstance if the offender facilitates the commission of the crime or facilitate the commission of any violation of RA 9156 with the use of diplomatic passports or with the use of diplomatic channels or well, of course, with the use of the influence of a diplomatic, etc., etc., now, naturally the offender there would be at least either a co-conspirator in violating the law on dangerous drugs. So, under 9156, even an ambassador or any person who possesses diplomatic immunity may be prosecuted under 9156. Maybe, this will be questioned
