Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
suppletorily.
provides:
The first sentence provides for the circumstances in the proper imposition of
general rule. Special laws are not subject to penalties are not applicable, as a rule, to
the provisions of the Revised Penal Code. special penal laws. Consequently, in Noble vs.
Hence, the provisions on stages of execution People, 77 Phil. 1086, plea of guilt as a
under Article 6, degree of participation of mitigating circumstance is not available to
persons who are criminally liable under Title offenses punishable under special laws.
Two and the appreciation of the modifying
The second sentence refers to the *Exception:
the Supreme Court applied the principle of In the decision, the Supreme Court
conspiracy provided under Article 6 of the ruled: “The legislative declaration in R.A. No.
Revised Penal Code in suppletory character 7659 that plunder is a heinous offense implies
that it is a malum in se. For when the acts
to violation of B.P. 22 case. In Tan vs. Spouses
punished are inherently immoral or inherently
Tan, G.R. No. G.R. No. 168852, September 30,
wrong, they are mala in se and it does not
2008, in a case involving Violence Against
matter that such acts are punished in a special
Women and Children or R.A. 9262, the
law, especially since in the case of plunder the
predicate crimes are mainly mala in se.
*Exception:
1
penalty imposable; in a special
not;
*Exceptions:
June 5, 2009.
*Exceptions:
thereof, it states that “any person who shall 1.03 DIFFERENTIATE “INTENT TO
commit any other acts of child abuse, cruelty COMMIT A CRIME” FROM “INTENT
provides that in the imposition of penalties, be criminal intent; in the second (intent to
the attendance of mitigating and perpetrate the act) it is enough that the
prohibited act is done freely and consciously.
extenuating circumstances as provided by
Elenita C. Fajardo vs. People, G.R. No. 190889,
the Revised Penal Code, shall be considered
January 10, 2011
by the Court.
2
STILL BE GRANTED?(SEC.4)
of the Revised Penal Code are mala in se and defendant has perfected an appeal from
the judgment of conviction.”
still subject to its provision.
The Probation Law prohibits a judge
-oooOOOooo-
an appeal from the judgment of conviction.
[BAR Q. 2012, 2010, 2009, 2005, 2004, filed a Notice of Appeal before the RTC before
2003, 2002, 2001, 1997, 1995, 1994, the application was instituted. The law is
1993, 1992, 1990, 1986] patently clear: "no application for probation
judgment of conviction."
Illustrative cases
1.00 WHAT ARE THE PURPOSES OF
b) to provide an opportunity for the be made within the period for perfecting an
appeal. Sable vs. People 584 SCRA 619, April 7, 1. BAR Q.[2010] Matt was found guilty
probation?
3
IMPLICATION ON THE RIGHT TO
APPEAL IF THE APPLICATION FOR
PROBATION WAS PREVIOUSLY
FILED ?
perfected an appeal from the judgment of
Section 4 of P.D. 968 as amended
conviction.
expressly states:
2. BAR Q.[2001] A, a subdivision
“The filing of the application for
developer, was convicted by the RTC of
probation shall be deemed a waiver of the
Makati for failure to issue the
right to appeal.”
subdivision title to a lot buyer despite
probation? Explain.
conviction.
SCRA 357
probation upon the promulgation of the In People vs. Efren Salvan Y Presenes,
judgment. What is the legal effect of his G.R. No. 153845 September 11, 2003, the
application for probation on the Court reiterated that the law that bars an
appeal of the judgment of conviction, as well
judgment of conviction? Does said
as its corresponding criminal liability, should
application interrupt the running of the
not bar an appeal of the civil aspect of the
period of appeal?
same judgment.
upon filing of the said application. The remedy Yes, Section 4 of the same law states:
4
(5) Who Are Already Serving Sentence At
PROBATION?
THOSE:
Prior to his conviction, he had been serve sentence as any other convicted
person. The court, however, may place
found guilty of vagrancy and
the accused under probation or
imprisoned for ten (10) days of arresto
community service in lieu of
menor and fined fifty pesos (P50.00). Is
imprisonment.
he eligible for probation? Why?
served by a harsh and stringent interpretation No. 10707 provides that NO application
the Court expect him to feel penitent over a reviewed, and such judgment is modified
crime, which as the Court now finds, he did not through the imposition of a
commit? He only committed attempted probationable penalty, the defendant
homicide with its maximum penalty of 2 years shall be allowed to apply for probation
and 4 months.
based on the modified decision before
At any rate, what is clear is that, had the such decision shall becomes final.
taken individually and separately, are c. Probation is not applicable when accused
vs. CA, 243 SCRA 384 assault is a crime against public order)
The Crimes against National (3) Who Have Previously Been Convicted
c. Misprision of Treason
d. Espionage
and a fine of one hundred pesos.
probation.
(5) Who Are Already Serving Sentence At
(4) Who Have Been Once On Probation The Time The Substantive Provisions Of
This Decree Became Applicable Pursuant
e. Public Disorders
To Section 33 Hereof.
a. Probation is not applicable when the the state the time, effort and expenses to
accused is sentenced to serve a maximum of jettison an appeal. Sable vs. People 584 SCRA
six (6) years. 619, April 7, 2009
7
not exceed six years.
The Supreme Court had the occasion which case, he has to serve the sentence
No. The period within which a person Yes, where the special law adopted
is under probation cannot be equated with penalties from the Revised Penal Code, the
as it would in felonies.
Section 4 of the Probation Law
specifically provides that in the grant of The Supreme Court in Sanchez vs.
probation, the probationer does not serve People 588 SCRA 747, June 5, 2009, stressed
the penalty imposed upon him by the court that although Republic Act No. 7610 is a
but is merely required to comply with all the
special law, the rules in the Revised Penal
conditions prescribed by the probation
Code for graduating penalties by degrees or
order. Moren vs. Comelec and Mejes, G.R.
determining the proper period should be
168550, August 10, 2006
applied.
should be applied.
9
No, it is deemed included in the
SCRA 461
2. Those convicted of treason,
5. Habitual delinquents.
evaded sentence.
same.
of this act.
IS NOT APPLICABLE.
Imprisonment.
ISLAW?
b. Query: May the privileged mitigating punished by prision correccional and a
circumstance of minority be appreciated in fine not exceeding P5,000.00. Is the
fixing the penalty that should be imposed
Indeterminate Sentence Law applicable
even if the penalty imposed is originally an
to AA?
indivisible penalty?
a. Yes. The Indeterminate Sentence Law is
Yes. The ISLAW is applicable because
applicable to AA because the maximum
the penalty which has been originally an
of prision correccional exceeds one (1)
indivisible penalty (reclusion perpetua to
year.
death), where ISLAW is inapplicable, became
a divisible penalty (reclusion temporal) by b. Yes. The Indeterminate Sentence Law is
virtue of the presence of the privileged applicable to AA because there is no
mitigating circumstance of minority. People
showing that he is a habitual delinquent.
vs. Allen Udtojan Mantalaba, G.R. No. 186227:
July 20, 2011 c. No. The Indeterminate Sentence Law is
commit treason).
Illustrative Case
3. Habitual Delinquents.
BAR Q.[2012] AA was convicted of
He is a person who within a period imprisonment less than one year, it should
of ten (10) years from the date of his release not impose indeterminate penalty but
or last conviction of the crimes of serious, straight penalty of one year or less instead.
amended).
Illustrative case
Sentence.
sentence.
1.04 WHAT ARE THE REASONS WHY THE minimum and maximum periods of the
MAXIMUM AND THE MINIMUM indeterminate sentence is to prevent the
TERM OF THE INDETERMINATE unnecessary and excessive deprivation of
SENTENCE HAVE TO BE FIXED BY liberty and to enhance the economic
THE COURT? usefulness of the accused, since he may be
following reasons: 11
Board;
prisoner.