Criminal Law Theories Explained

Summary

The Classical Theory in criminal law emphasizes free will and proportionate punishment, supporting the Revised Penal Codes focus on intent. The Positivist Theory considers external influences on crime, advocating for rehabilitation, as seen in the Philippines probation and parole systems. The Eclectic Theory combines free will and external factors, balancing penalties with rehabilitation in the Philippine justice system. The Utilitarian Theory focuses on societal utility, using deterrence and incapacitation to prevent future crimes. Penal laws are interpreted in favor of the accused to protect against state power abuse, ensuring fairness and justice.

Full Conversation

The Eclectic or Mixed Theory offers a balanced approach, integrating elements of both, recognizing both free will and influencing factors, which largely defines the current Philippine criminal justice system that blends fixed penalties with avenues for rehabilitation. Finally, the Utilitarian Theory justifies punishment based on its societal utility, primarily its ability to prevent future crimes through deterrence and incapacitation, a core principle underpinning the overall crime prevention philosophy of the Philippine penal system. SIMPLIFY
Here's a simplified explanation:
- Eclectic or Mixed Theory: Combines free will and external influences, balancing fixed penalties with rehabilitation in the Philippine justice system.
- Utilitarian Theory: Punishment serves societal utility by preventing future crimes through deterrence and incapacitation, guiding crime prevention in the Philippine penal system.
General Rule: Penal laws are interpreted strictly against the state and liberally in favor of the accused. RATIONALE WHY IN FAVOR OF THE ACCUSED?
Penal laws are interpreted in favor of the accused to protect individuals from potential abuse of power by the state. This ensures fairness and justice, as the consequences of criminal allegations can be severe. It prevents misinterpretation or expansion of laws that might unjustly penalize individuals.
Enumerate the differences between pardon and amnesty. *.*% Under Presidential Proclamation No. *, amending Presidential Proclamation No. *, certain crimes are covered by the grant of amnesty. Name at least * of these crimes. *.*% Can former DSWD Secretary Dinky Soliman apply for amnesty? How about columnist Randy David? (You are supposed to know the crimes or offenses ascribed to them as published in almost all newspapers for the past several months.) *.*% General Lim and General Querubin of the Scout Rangers and Philippine Marines, respectively, were charged with conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman under the Articles of War . Can they apply for amnesty? *.*% suggested answer please
Case Rating: *
Here's a simplified answer to your questions:
*. Differences between Pardon and Amnesty:
- Pardon: A legal forgiveness for a specific crime, removing penalties but not erasing the conviction.
- Amnesty: A broader act of forgiveness, often erasing the criminal record for a group of people.
*. Crimes covered by Presidential Proclamation No. *:
- Rebellion
- Sedition
- Conspiracy to commit rebellion
- Coup d'état
- Mutiny
*. Application for Amnesty:
- Former DSWD Secretary Dinky Soliman: If accused of crimes covered by amnesty, she may apply.
- Columnist Randy David: Same condition applies based on alleged crimes.
*. General Lim and General Querubin:
- Yes, if their actions fall under the crimes covered by the amnesty proclamation.
Let me know if you need more information!
In *, the Philippine National Bank (PNB), then a government banking institution, hired Henry dela Renta, a CPA, as Regional Bank Auditor. In *, he resigned and was employed by the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC), another government-owned and controlled corporation. In *, after the PNB management unearthed many irregularities and violations of the bank's rules and regulations, dela Renta was found to have manipulated certain accounts involving trust funds and time deposits of depositors. After investigation, he was charged with malversation of public funds before the Sandiganbayan. He filed a motion to dismiss contending he was no longer an employee of the PNB but of the PDIC. Is dela Renta's contention tenable? *.*%
Case Rating: *
Dela Renta's contention is not tenable. Malversation involves the misuse of public funds, and the charge can be applicable regardless of current employment status if the alleged crime occurred during his tenure at PNB. The focus is on the act itself, not the current employment.
Violation: A penal law that imposes a harsher penalty for illegal gambling if committed by individuals from a specific province, without any rational basis related to the crime or its prevention. Or, a law that makes a particular act criminal only when committed by persons above 60 years old, while the same act is legal for younger individuals, without a reasonable justification. Permissible: A law that imposes higher penalties for recidivists (repeat offenders) compared to first-time offenders. This is a valid classification because it rests on a substantial distinction (prior criminal history) and is germane to the law's purpose of deterrence and punishment. Similarly, laws that treat minors differently from adults in the criminal justice system are permissible. SIMPLIFY
Case Rating: *
Here's a simplified explanation of permissible and violation in penal laws:
- Violation: Laws that discriminate without a rational basis, like penalizing illegal gambling harsher based on province or age without justification.
- Permissible: Laws with rational distinctions, like imposing higher penalties on repeat offenders or treating minors differently from adults in the justice system.
his case is highly significant for clarifying the evidentiary requirements for proving illegal possession of firearms under R.A. *. Key takeaway from Togado v. People: • Necessity of Presenting the Actual Firearm in Court: The Supreme Court emphasized that in cases involving violations of R.A. No. *, the prosecution should generally present the exact same firearm that was confiscated from the accused. • Proof of Integrity: Furthermore, the prosecution must prove that the integrity of the confiscated firearm was preserved from the moment of seizure until its presentation in court. • Consequence of Non-Compliance: Failure to comply with these requirements, without sufficient justification, can create reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused, leading to acquittal. simplified
Case Rating: *
It seems you're discussing a legal case related to the evidentiary requirements under R.A. *, based on the Togado v. People case. If you have any specific questions about this or need further clarification, feel free to ask!