Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 97 views

    Crim Reviewer Section 00123 PDF

    Uploaded by

    LawStudent101412
    - The document discusses the rules and exceptions regarding the retroactive application of penal laws that are more favorable to the accused under Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code. - As a general rule, Article 22 provides that a person can benefit from a lighter penalty imposed by a law enacted after the commission of the felony if it is more favorable. However, there are exceptions for civil liability, jurisdiction of courts, and if a law increases civil liability. - The key exceptions are that Article 22 does not apply to civil liability or if a new law increases jurisdiction or civil liability. It also does not apply if there was no law punishing the act before.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Crim Reviewer Section 00123 PDF

    Uploaded by

    LawStudent101412
    97 views1 page
    - The document discusses the rules and exceptions regarding the retroactive application of penal laws that are more favorable to the accused under Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code. - As a general rule, Article 22 provides that a person can benefit from a lighter penalty imposed by a law enacted after the commission of the felony if it is more favorable. However, there are exceptions for civil liability, jurisdiction of courts, and if a law increases civil liability. - The key exceptions are that Article 22 does not apply to civil liability or if a new law increases jurisdiction or civil liability. It also does not apply if there was no law punishing the act before.

    Original Title

    Crim Reviewer Section 00123.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    - The document discusses the rules and exceptions regarding the retroactive application of penal laws that are more favorable to the accused under Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code. - As a general rule, Article 22 provides that a person can benefit from a lighter penalty imposed by a law enacted after the commission of the felony if it is more favorable. However, there are exceptions for civil liability, jurisdiction of courts, and if a law increases civil liability. - The key exceptions are that Article 22 does not apply to civil liability or if a new law increases jurisdiction or civil liability. It also does not apply if there was no law punishing the act before.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    97 views1 page

    Crim Reviewer Section 00123 PDF

    Uploaded by

    LawStudent101412
    - The document discusses the rules and exceptions regarding the retroactive application of penal laws that are more favorable to the accused under Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code. - As a general rule, Article 22 provides that a person can benefit from a lighter penalty imposed by a law enacted after the commission of the felony if it is more favorable. However, there are exceptions for civil liability, jurisdiction of courts, and if a law increases civil liability. - The key exceptions are that Article 22 does not apply to civil liability or if a new law increases jurisdiction or civil liability. It also does not apply if there was no law punishing the act before.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    • __

    - The sovereign, in enacting a subsequent penal law punish an accused person under the old law. (U.S. vs.
    more favorable to the accused, has recognized that Cuna, 12 Phil. 241, 247)
    the greater severity of the former law is unjust. - [SAVING CLAUSE] ]When there is a saving clause. (U.S.
    - The sovereign would be inconsistent if it would still vs. Cuna, 12 Phil. 241, supra; Wing vs. U.S., 218 U.S. 272)
    enforce its right under conditions of the former law, - The right to punish offenses committed under
    which has already been regarded by conscientious an old penal law is not extinguished if the
    public opinion as juridically burdensome. (People vs. offenses are still punished in the repealing
    Moran, 44 Phil. 387, 414) penal law. (U.S. vs. Cuna, supra; People vs.
    Rosenthal, 68 Phil. 328)
    - RULE [ARTICLE 22 APPLICABLE]: even if the accused is already
    serving sentence
    - The provision of Art. 22 that penal laws shall have a - RULE [ARTICLE 22 APPLICABLE]: General rule, penalty basis is at
    retroactive effect insofar as they favor the person guilty the time of the commission of the crime, UNLESS a later law is
    of a felony is applicable even if the accused is already more favorable to the accused.
    serving sentence. (Escalante vs. Santos, 56 Phil. 483, - IF penalty prescribed by a law enacted after the
    485) commission of the felony may be imposed, if it is
    favorable to the offender. (Art. 22)
    - RULE [ARTICLE 22 APPLICABLE ONLY]: In order that a
    subsequent statute may have a retroactive effect, it must in the - RULE [ARTICLE 22 NOT APPLICABLE]: TO CIVIL LIABILITY
    first place refer to the same deed or omission penalized by the - The principle that criminal statutes are retroactive so far
    former statute and must seek the same end and purpose. (U.S. as they favor the culprit does not apply to the latter's
    vs. Macasaet, 11 Phil. 447, 449) civil liability, because the rights of offended persons or
    - RULE [ARTICLE 22 APPLICABLE]: Also applicable to SPECIAL innocent third parties are not within the gift of arbitrary
    LAWS disposal of the State.

    - RULE [ARTICLE 22 APPLICABLE] [IF ABSOLUTE REPEAL] [CRIMINAL - RULE [ARTICLE 22 NOT APPLICABLE]: as regards jurisdiction of
    LIABILITY EXTINGUISHED] court. [basis: law in force at the time of action]
    - ABSOLUTE REPEAL: People vs. Tamayo (61 Phil. 226) - The jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal action is to
    - On the other hand, in the Tamayo case, the be determined by the law in force at the time of
    repeal (completely eliminating Section 2 of instituting the action, not at the time of the commission
    the Ordinance under which the accused was of the crime. (People vs. Romualdo, 90 Phil. 739, 744)
    being prosecuted) was absolute.
    - Held: A person cannot be prosecuted, - RULE [ARTICLE 22 NOT APPLICABLE]: a new law increasing the
    convicted, and punished for acts no longer civil liability cannot be given retroactive effect.
    criminal. The case was dismissed.
    - REENACTMENT: When the repeal is by reenactment,
    the court has jurisdiction to try and punish an accused
    person under the old law. (U.S. vs. Cuna, 12 Phil. 241, - EXCEPTION TO EXCEPTION POSSIBLE: When the law itself
    247) provides
    - Criminal liability under former law is obliterated when - Thus, Rep. Act No. 4661, reducing the period of
    the repeal is absolute. prescription of criminal action for libel from two years to
    one year, specifically provides that "The provisions of
    this amendatory Act shall not apply to cases of libel
    - RULE [ARTICLE 22 NOT APPLICABLE] [IF IMPLIED REPEAL?] [OR IF already filed in court at the time of approval of this
    REPEAL BY REENACTMENT] [CRIMINAL LIABILITY OF THE REPEALED amendatory Act."
    LAW SUBSISTS]
    - Art. 366. Application of laws enacted prior to this Code. - EXCEPTION TO EXCEPTION POSSIBLE: [When there is no law
    Without prejudice to the provisions contained in Art. 22 punishing it before as to retroact to?] [When old RPC did not
    of this Code, felonies and misdemeanors committed punish it, it won’t retroact in a way of no punishment]
    prior to the date of effectiveness of this Code shall be - People vs. Carballo (62 Phil. 651)
    punished in accordance with the Code or Acts in force - Prior to January 1, 1932, when the Revised Penal Code
    at the time of their commission. took effect, there was no law punishing the violation of
    - IMPLIED REPEAL: These two articles mean that while a conditional pardon as a crime. Held: The provisions of
    felonies and misdemeanors committed prior to the the Revised Penal Code cannot be given retroactive
    date of effectiveness of the Revised Penal Code shall effect.
    be punished in accordance with the Code or Acts in - Held: The intention of the Legislature in embodying this
    force at the time of their commission, the same should provision of Art. 366 in the Revised Penal Code was to
    not be the case if such Code or Acts are unfavorable insure that the elimination from this Code of certain
    to the guilty party, for the general principle on the crimes penalized by former acts before the
    retroactivity of favorable penal laws, recognized in Art. enforcement of this Code should not have the effect
    22, should then apply. Lagrimas vs. Director of Prisons of pardoning guilty persons who were serving their
    (57 Phil. 249) sentences for the commission of such crimes. Petition
    - REPEAL BY REENACTMENT: When the repeal is by denied. Lagrimas vs. Director of Prisons (57 Phil. 249)
    reenactment, the court has jurisdiction to try and

    You might also like