Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/68836082/Case-Doctrines-Criminal-Law-II
Timestamp: 2017-09-20 05:12:09
Document Index: 383494270

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 1', 'Art. 141', 'Art. 115', 'Art. 142', 'Art.\n153', 'Art. 171']

Case Doctrines Criminal Law II | Treason | Assault
Uploaded by Virson Vispo
CASE DOCTRINES AND ADDITIONAL NOTES CRIMINAL LAW II (Culled from Florenz Regalado’s Conspectus and Ortega’s Notes) Article 114. TREASON “The details of the testimony on the acts testified by witnesses need not be identical” (People vs. Abad)  “The two-witness rule is not required to prove adherence to the enemy” (People vs. Alitagtag)  “Treason absorbs crimes committed in the furtherance thereof” (People vs. Villanueva)  “Righteous Action, as when the collaborator also helped save some guerrillas from death at the hands of the invader is illogical and baseless” (People vs. Victoria)  “Defense of Suspended Allegiance by reason of change of sovereignty was untenable since a citizen owes an absolute allegiance to his country (Laurel vs. Misa)  An assemblage even without an armed public uprising is sufficient.  Article 115. CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO COMMIT TREASON.   Separately punished only Treason was not committed. N/A two-witness rule if 
is a mala prohibitum therefore punishable even if contained innocent matters. N/A two-witness rule FLIGHT TO ENEMY’S
ARTICLE 121. COUNTRY. 
ARTICLE 124. ARBITRARY DETENTION.  “A private person can be liable and punished if he acted in conspiracy with public officers.” (People vs. Camerino) “Mistake of Fact, Good Faith, acted without culpable negligence are valid defenses, even if it turns out that the person was innocent.” (People vs. Ancheta) No legal ground, without intent to deliver to judicial authorities. (Arbitrary Detention) No Legal ground, with intent to turn over to judicial authorities (Unlawful Arrest) Legal Ground with intent to deliver to judicial authorities but unreasonably delays (Undue Delay under 125) No intent to detain, but unlawfully prevented for an appreciable length of time from free movement (Coercion) Victim is a woman and detained with lewd designs from the outset (abduction) Offenses cannot be complexed. “Psychological and not only physical restraint is sufficient for the crime of arbitrary detention, as when victim was permitted to take meals outside of detention but was too terrorized not to return.” (People vs. Oliva)
ARTICLE 116. MISPRISION OF TREASON.   Felony by omission. Mere silence is punishable even without attempt to conceal. (ACTUAL EXISTENCE OF CONSPIRACY is the BASIS) N/A two-witness rule
 Express
Prohibition by Government of Correspondence
vs. or incidental to a lawful arrest. If a private individual conspired he is liable under this article. DELAY IN THE DELIVERY OF DETAINED PERSONS TO THE PROPER JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES. (US vs. (first mode liable) If Offender is a private individual. ARTICLE 132. EXPULSION. Sali)  ZPG & Associates 2 A public officer entering another’s dwelling to prevent some serious harm to himself or the dwelling’s occupants or a third person or entry into taverns and other public houses absolves a person from criminal liability.  Applicable in searches with a warrant or valid warrantless searches. 153..   ARTICLE 131. If the offense was committed only in a meeting or a rally of a sect it . Calera)<Unjust Vexation.  “Order of release may be given verbally. Acasio) Arrested person may be detained beyond stated periods if he demands preliminary investigation (Sec. proper crime here> OF ARTICLE 126. it just makes the arresting officer criminally liable” (People vs. Chief of Police) “Failure to deliver the arrestee does not make detention illegal.” (People vs. SEARCHING DOMICILE WITHOUT WITNESSES.Created by HOMER PABLO ARTICLE 125. INTERRUPTION AND DISSOLUTION OF PEACEFUL MEETINGS. referring to penalty categories) “The hours during which the courts are closed and no deliver can be made are not to be counted” (People vs. “trespass to dwelling” is committed   Public Officers vs. SEARCH WARRANTS MALICIOUSLY OBTAINED AND ABUSE IN THE SERVICE OF THOSE LEGALLY OBTAINED. Misa) ARTILCE 127. where entry was effected through an opening not intended for that purpose.  Only Chief Executive can order deportation. “Delivery refers to filing of complaint. 153.   Public Officers vs. VIOLATION OF DOMICILE.  Implied objection. also where there is consent of owner. Rules Crim. Ponte)   ARTICLE 130. “There must actually be a religious ceremony. Mabong) Article applies to special laws.”or their equivalent”. 7 Rule 112 Rev. 125 made applicable to security guards employed by a company who arrested and delayed the turnover of public officers whom they held in custody (People vs. PROHIBITION.Private Individuals “This cannot be committed by a person who is a participant in the meeting” (People vs. Judicial Authority refers to courts of justice not the public prosecutor” (Sayo et al.  ARTICLE 129.   Provision applies to arrests without warrant and it is lawful. Pro. (.) Art. INTERRUPTION RELIGIOUS WORSHIP   ARTICLE 128. DELAYING RELEASE.Private Individuals Customarily observed and authorized by authorities of a religion.   Perjury and others crime separate.
Therefore violation of PD 1866 being malum prohibitum. OR  ZPG & Associates 3  “No crime of misprision of rebellion” (US vs.        Both crimes can be committed in peace or war time An armed public uprising by a substantial number of rebels is generally required. Sedition: Conspiracy (Art. Tiozon). MAJOR CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND PUBLIC ORDER. Oliva) “Illegal Possession of firearm in furtherance of rebellion under PD 1866 is distinct from the crime of rebellion under the RPC. Salazar) “Offenses committed for personal reasons or other motives are punished separately even if committed simultaneously with the rebellious acts” (People vs. Otherwise they are absorbed and offenders will be principal by inducement. Misprision of Treason (Art. 1. Coup d’etat: Conspiracy and proposal (Art. DISLOYALTY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES. OFFENDING RELIGIOUS FEELINGS. 116) <No Crime of Inciting to Treason> 2.” (People vs. Reyes) ARTICLE 133. Jr. Rebellion: Conspiracy and Proposal (Art. 141). “Sedition does not absorb murder committed by reason or in furtherance of the seditious activities. therefore charging one of illegal possession of firearms in furtherance of rebellion is proper. Disloyalty of Public Officers (Art. 115). inciting (Art. 142)  BASIC   RULE: Conspiracy.” (People vs. invalidates the defenses of good faith and absence of criminal intent.153) The assemblage of persons present must not have been . Cabrera) ARTICLE 134.  No Crime under this article if principal crime is treason.” (People vs. 136) 4. 131” (People vs. Inciting (Art. proposal and inciting are punishable only if “major crimes” are NOT COMMITTED. Acts or words of incitement must have been premeditated. unnecessary that a religious ceremony is conducted. Hernandez.” (People vs.  ARTICLE 139. ARTICLE 134-A.  Arms not necessary as long as there is tumultuous public uprising. 137). “Rebellion cannot be complexed with but absorbs acts committed in the furtherance of the rebellious movement. otherwise if they were only spontaneous the crime will be tumultuous disturbance as an outcry tending to incite rebellion or sedition (Art. SEDITION. Enrile vs. 138) 3. Mandoriao. ARTICLE 137. COUP D’ETAT.) If acts committed in a place devoted to religious worship. Ravidas) *Misprision is only to treason! Concealment by the offender of the rebellious activities may make him an accessory.” (People vs. 136). REBELLION INSURRECTION.   Public Officer/Private Individuals “A public rally by itself conducted by a religious group is not religious ceremony. de Gracia) “A crime under the RPC cannot be absorbed by a statutory offense.Created by HOMER PABLO would be punishable under Art. Treason: Conspiracy and proposal (Art.
153) or unlawful utterances (Art. ARTICLE 146. the crime was held to be . DIRECT ASSAULT. Offense may be coercion or physical injuries <II Viada 246>  “Attack was on the occasion of the performance by victim of his official duties. “Knowingly conceal such evil practices” <Art. it is required that (a) the accused knew the identity of the victim and (b) the victim was then acting in the due and lawful performance of his duties. resistance or disobedience. rebellion. ARTICLE 144. CA)  “Direct assault is committed even if several days had transpired between the victim’s performance of his official duty and the assault. Presumption is that there are persons armed otherwise it will be covered by Public Disorder (Art. FIRST FORM: (Force/Intimidation + Objectives of Rebellion/Sedition – Public Uprising  “To constitute direct assault against an agent of a person in authority the violence. Force producing physical injuries. Gumban) all forms of assault. 146). sedition or assault. Garcia)  “If the cause of the direct assault was the past performance by the victim of his official duties which the accused resented. crime will be physical injuries” (People vs.  Misprision of Treason and disloyalty of public officers can be prosecuted independently. or the reason for the attack against him was his performance of such official duties. PROCEEDINGS. Rellin)  If both are accused and victim are public officers. or Fraud involving falsification. Tabiana)  “If the victim is a person in authority the degree of force employed against him is immaterial as the mere laying of hands on him is sufficient” (US vs. because it presupposes that the accused was not discharging his official duties during the attack. 154[2]) ARTICLE 148. ACTS TENDING TO PREVENT THE MEETING OF THE CONGRESS AND SIMILAR BODIES. 142> principal not accessory! ARTICLE 143.  In re: Sedition. otherwise the crime will be illegal assembly (Art. Sañiel)  “If a school teacher was slapped by the accused not while she was performing her school functions nor by reason thereof.” (People vs.Created by HOMER PABLO called for the purpose of listening to such incitement. but in the presence of her pupils.  Assembly was for the purpose of committing offenses other than treason. ILLEGAL ASSEMBLIES.” (US vs. as when a judge was boxed out while it is standing on a railway station. NO DIRECT ASSAULT. motive is immaterial. Torrecarion)  “If motive will not be established.   DISTURBANCE OF ZPG & Associates  “In 4 No public uprising involved. intimidation or resistance employed by the offender must be serious. the accused is guilty of direct assault even if he attacked the victim while both were going out to fight (Justo vs. Said offenses are complexed as necessary means employed. as where the judge was attacked by the offender by reason of a contempt order he issued for the incarceration of the latter several days before the offense” (People vs.” (US vs.
should be distinguished from inciting to sedition as the latter requires offender at the same time to incite the people to rise publicly against the government. ARTICLE 159. “When a guard who was off duty took out a prisoner from jail for 5 hours replacing him in his cell another prisoner.EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE ARTICLE 158.  “There is no evasion of service of sentence if the escapee is (a) . Acierto) “If the public officer was acting with abuse of his official functions. he is deemed to be acting in a private capacity and if he is attacked. OR OTHER CALAMITIES.  “Conspirators are liable under the article. EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE ON THE OCCASION OF DISORDERS. Thus. CONFLAGRATIONS. they will be separate crimes.” (People vs.  “There can be separate crimes of physical injuries thru reckless imprudence and tumultuous disturbance caused by the firing of a submachine gun. guard is liable under the article” (People vs. DELIVERY OF PRISONERS FROM JAIL. UNLAWFUL USE OF MEANS OF PUBLICATION AND UNLAWFUL UTTERANCES. parricide.Created by HOMER PABLO slander by deed” (People vs. INDIRECT ASSAULT. there could be no direct assault if the cause of the fight was a private matter.     ARTICLE 153. EARTHQUAKES. the offender is liable for physical injuries or coercion depending on the acts committed. but the warden or jail custodian of prisoners is liable for infidelity in the custody of prisoners” (Alberto vs. dela Cruz) Bribery shall be a separate crime. there would be no crime of direct assault. Yosoya) ZPG & Associates 5 some election inspectors. the slight physical injuries will be absorbed in the direct assault” (People vs. and the latter was also attacked. Del Barrio) ARTICLE 149. but if the victim is an agent of a person in authority. Gamo) “If direct assault was committed with slight physical injuries and the victim is a person in authority. OTHER CASES OF EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE.  Whether or not there is request or order from the person in authority to aid the latter. Bacolod) “An accused could also be liable for the complex crime of assault and tumultuous disturbance if the latter offense was committed on the same occasion and by the same means of attacking  ARTICLE 157.” (Villanueva vs. “ (People vs.  “Paragraph 2. (Said person is considered an agent of a person in authority) If the agent of a person in authority is attacked and a third person comes to aid. Ortiz)  ARTICLE 154. Arrogante)  ARTICLE 156. If the prisoner is detained for the crime of treason. where two councillors fought in the session hall. TUMULTS AND OTHER DISTURBANCES OF PUBLIC ORDER. murder or an attempt against the President’s life it has been suggested that those who delivered him from jail are accessories to those crimes.” (People vs.
but he returned thereafter. an example of violation under par. Imprisonment. (c) is a deportee who violates the deportation order. 2). Samson) <Art. 171 Par. There was no mutiny. FALSIFICATION BY PUBLIC OFFICER. OF THE PHILIPPINES. IMPORTING AND UTTERING FALSE OR FORGED NOTES. as it deals with crimes against persons and property only. 2” (People vs.” (People vs. Maternal) or “while he was in the act of escaping therefrom” (People vs. not a crime punished by a special law. it does not matter whether it was also a felony or a crime punished by a special law. but he did so by posing and signing as the payee thereof. (b) is a youthful offender committed to a rehabilitation center. Abilong) Article 158. N/A Destierro Article 159.  “A Philippine Charity Sweepstakes ticket has been declared to be a governmental obligation” (People vs.  “In imitating or counterfeiting there must be some similarity or resemblance between the original and the counterfeit” (US vs.     ARTICLE 166-169. FORGING THE SIGNATURE OR STAMP OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE.” (People vs. which is a governmental obligation. With regard to the offense of which the accused was already sentenced by final judgment. 2>   ARTICLE 160. FORGING TREASURY OR BANK NOTES. “Where the accused encashed a treasury warrant. No impossible crime here. ARTICLE 162. Lampa) “Voting in place of a registered voter. Martin)  ZPG & Associates 6 If the document is one supposedly signed by the President in a private capacity the crime would be falsification and not forgery under the Article 161. OBLIGATIONS AND SECURITIES. Abubakar) Paragraph 4: “Making false statements in an application form for patrolman examination (Civil Service Form No. Tiongson)    ARTICLE 171.” (US vs. Peralta) “Quasi-recidivism can also be committed while offender was at large after escaping from the penal institution” (People vs. EMPLOYEE OR NOTARY OR ECCLESIASTIC MINISTER. the crime is falsification and not forgery” (People vs.   . Loo Hoe) Article 157. QUASI-RECIDIVISM  “The offense committed while the accused is serving sentence must be a felony. 159 is substantive if penalty remitted is 6 years or less since a penalty is imposed therein” (People vs. COUNTERFEITING THE GREAT SEAL OF THE GOVT. Applicable to Destierro (People vs. Balmores) Intent to use illegally possessed counterfeit notes and instruments of credit may be determined from the volume or number of said notes and the acts of the accused taken in connection therewith. under oath as required ARTICLE 161.Created by HOMER PABLO only a detention prisoner. OBLIGATIONS AND SECURITIES. Applicable to Destierro “Accused was forced by some detainees to leave the jail. Padilla) “Violation under Art. USING FORGED SIGNATURE OR COUNTERFEIT SEAL OR STAMP.
” (US vs. “Making alterations or corrections in a document to make it speak the truth. Yanza) Similar to the case of  ZPG & Associates 7 claimant of land (People vs.”(People vs. San Jose).” (People vs. especially so if he had the opportunity and the motive to do so. “Falsification is not a continuing offense and is consummated when the document is actually falsified. Bañas) or by a public officer” (People vs.      “Damage or intent to cause damage is an essential element. Marasigan) No crime of estafa thru falsification of a private document. Cruz) “No such legal obligation in the preparation of the formation papers of a corporation to state the truth. hence where the declarant stated that she was “eligible” for the public position. Quasha) “There was no legal obligation to disclose the fact of a previous conviction in the personal data form submitted by the offender to the police department since that form was not an official document. an inaccuracy therein could not hold her liable for falsification as she was actually expressing only an opinion. the offender is not liable for falsification as such compulsion does not make it a false instrument. Po Giok To) “NBI personal data sheet is an official document” (People vs. Poserio) “There is a legal obligation to disclose the truth in entries made in a residence certificate. cannot be falsification as the essence of this offense is to make the document tell a lie.” (Alfelor et al vs. Milla) “Falsification can be committed by imprudence. either by a private individual (People vs. hence the accused was liable for falsification. Prudente)   . Manansala) “What is required to be true is an assertion of fact by the accused. regardless of whether or not it was thereafter put to illegal use.” (People vs. but only a voidable one. Damage to honor is sufficient. Castillo) “The person in possession of a falsified document is presumed to have falsified the same.” (People vs. hence no falsification was committed. FALSIFICATION PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS. Intia) “Damage is not required if the falsified document is introduced as evidence in a judicial proceeding.Created by HOMER PABLO constitutes perjury not falsification” (People vs. San Mateo) BY ARTICLE 172.” (US vs. Damage is an element only when the document is introduced in a proceeding or transaction other than judicial. (People vs. so there is no falsification” (People vs.” (People vs. Uy)  “Where force was employed to compel another to execute a contract. even if unilaterally done.
Documents Similar To Case Doctrines Criminal Law II
Brij Bhushan and Anr. vs the State of Delhi on 2 March, 1950
CRIM1 MIDTERMS REVIEWER 2015 - ARTICLE 8.docx
United States v. Jacob Harrison, Jr., United States of America v. Casey Seon Burnett, 272 F.3d 220, 4th Cir. (2002)
Doctrines on Jurisdiction.docx
MMA Act No. 25