Preview

Crim Law 1 - Reviewer

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
4907 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Crim Law 1 - Reviewer
iCriminal Law (dtp) - branch or division of law which defines, crimes, treats of their nature, and provide for their punishment. o Crime – act committed or omitted in violation of a public law forbidding or commanding it. - sources are: pns 1. Revised penal code (Act no. 3815) 2. Special Laws 3. Penal Presidential Decrees issued during Martial Law. - There is no common law crimes in the Philippines • Body of principles, usages and rules of action which don’t rest for their authority upon any express and positive declaration of the legislature - Court Decision, not source of criminal law. o Merely explain meaning and apply law

Limitation on the power of law making body to enact legislation 1. No ex post facto or bill of attainder 2. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law (double jeopardy)

Ex post facto - makes criminal an act done before passage of law - aggravates a crime than what was then - inflicts greater punishment - alters legal rules of evidence and authorizes conviction upon less or different testimony than law required - assumes to regulate civil rights, only in effect imposes penalty/deprivation of a right for something done unlawful - deprives person accused some lawful protection

Bill of attainder - legislative act which inflicts punishment without trial - substitution of a legislative act for a judicial determination of guilt

Constitutional Rights of the Accused (art. 3, Bill of Rights, 1987 Consti) 1. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative bodies 2. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law 3. All persons except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua,

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    Miranda Vs Arizona Summary

    • 1018 Words
    • 5 Pages

    There were four different cases that were addressed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona. These cases involve custodial interrogations and in each of these cases, the defendant was cut off from the outside world while they were being interrogated in a room by the police officers, detectives, as well as prosecuting attorneys. In the four cases, not even one of the defendants was given a full and effective warning of his rights during the interrogation process. Furthermore, the questioning done in all the cases elicited oral admissions and, in three of them, signed statements that were admitted at trial.…

    • 1018 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    The Miranda v. Arizona case is considered to be one of the most important and famous cases in modern law history that provided the foundation for some important legal provisions. It occurred in 1966 in Arizona, when a young man named Ernesto Miranda, a Mexican immigrant living in Phoenix, Arizona, was charged with robbery, kidnapping, and rape of a young woman several years prior the trial (Zalman, 2010). Before the suspect was interrogated, the police did not inform him of his constitutional right to remain silent which allowed the interrogators to get the confession. Given that this case provided the foundation for the right to remain silent, it became very famous and important. The present paper attempts to analyze the…

    • 140 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    The second of the Supreme Court Cases to be discussed is Miranda V. Arizona. The importance of this case is that Miranda was interrogated without knowledge of his 5th amendment rights. In this specific case, the police arrested Miranda from his home in order to take him into investigation at the Phoenix police station. While Miranda was put on trial, he was not informed that he had a right to an attorney. From this the officers were able to retrieve a signed written statement from Miranda. Most importantly, this letter stated that Miranda had full knowledge of his legal rights. From the evidence found, Miranda was sentenced to prison for 20 to 30 years. From here the Supreme Court stated that, “...Miranda's constitutional rights were not violated in obtaining the confession…” (Miranda V Arizona).…

    • 507 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Miranda V. Arizona

    • 671 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Brief Fact Summary: Self-incriminating evidence was provided by the defendants while interrogated by police without prior notification of the Fifth Amendment Rights of the United States Constitution.…

    • 671 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Sheppard Case

    • 1274 Words
    • 6 Pages

    The petitioner filed for habeas corpus relief in the federal courts. The question was whether Sheppard was deprived of a fair trail and his right to due process according to the Sixth Amendment. Was the petitioner denied a fair trail for the second-degree murder of his wife, of which he was convicted, because of the trail judge’s failure to protect Sheppard sufficiently from the massive, pervasive, and prejudicial publicity that attended his prosecution?…

    • 1274 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.” The Court also held that “without proper safeguards, the process of in-custody interrogation of persons suspected or accused of crime contains inherently compelling pressures which work to undermine the individual’s will to resist and to compel him to speak where he would otherwise do so freely.” Therefore, a defendant “must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.” As those reasons, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Supreme Court of Arizona in Miranda, reversed the judgment of the New York Court of Appeals in Vignera, reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Westover, and affirmed the judgment of the Supreme Court of California in Stewart.…

    • 875 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Supreme Court consolidated four separate court cases with issues concerning the admissibility of evidence obtained during police interrogations. All the defendants in each of these occurrences offered incriminating evidence during interrogations from police and were not notified prior to the interrogations of their rights granted to them under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Miranda was arrested and taken into custody to a police station where he was identified by the witness. He was questioned for 2 hours by officers without being advised of his right to counsel and then signed a statement that said that his confession was voluntary. ISSUE: Whether the government is required to notify the detained individuals of their constitutional rights granted by the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination prior to the individuals being interrogated by the authorities and assistance of counsel and give a voluntary waiver of these rights as a necessary precondition to police questioning and the giving of a…

    • 647 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Miranda vs. Arizona

    • 582 Words
    • 3 Pages

    The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision written by Chief Justice Earl Warren, ruled that the prosecution could not introduce Miranda's confession as evidence in a criminal trial because the police had failed to first inform Miranda of his right to an attorney and against self-incrimination. The police duty to give these warnings is compelled by the Constitution's Fifth Amendment, which gives a criminal suspect the right to refuse "to be a witness against himself," and Sixth Amendment, which guarantees criminal defendants the right to an attorney.…

    • 582 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    This case was also impacted because the Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution could not introduce Miranda’s confession as evidence in a criminal trial because the police had failed to first inform Miranda of his right to an attorney and a self-incrimination. The police duties were to give these warnings compelled by the Constitutions Fifth Amendment “which gives a criminal suspect the right to refuse” to be a witness against himself”, and Sixth Amendment which guarantees criminal defendants the right to an…

    • 1525 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Better Essays

    Next in citizens rights is the Fifth Amendment. This amendment gives us many of our due process rights. Here, it is stated that no person can be detained for a crime unless they are indicted by a grand jury or other legal process that determines there is probable cause for trial. This same amendment protects citizens from being tried more than once for the same crime, also known as double jeopardy. Double jeopardy can also be claimed if the…

    • 1381 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Equality and Diversity

    • 638 Words
    • 3 Pages

    | Sets out rights of all individuals and allows them to take action against authorities when their rights have been affected.…

    • 638 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Right to Confront

    • 2014 Words
    • 9 Pages

    ACT: An Impermissible Abridgement of Criminal Defendants ' Rights." Boston College. Web. 29 Nov. 2010. .…

    • 2014 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Better Essays

    Criminal Procedure

    • 1339 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Due process clause is “a clause found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments saying that no…

    • 1339 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    5th Amendment protects you from being held for committing a crime unless you are properly indicted or being forced to testify against yourself…

    • 791 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays