Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 11 views

    People VS Leo Lian

    Uploaded by

    Taga DepEd Ako
    The respondent was sentenced to reclusion perpetua for selling four tea bags of marijuana during a 1988 buy-bust operation. The respondent argued he should receive a lesser punishment under the Revised Penal Code. The court held that the respondent could avail of the lesser punishment under Article 22 of the RPC because Republic Act No. 7659, which amended drug laws, took effect in 1993 after the respondent was already serving his sentence. Thus, the respondent received an indeterminate penalty of arresto mayor or prision correctional instead of the full reclusion perpetua sentence. In a separate case, accused Leo Lian appealed his conviction for illegal possession of a firearm, arguing the trial court did not consider the indeterminate

    Copyright:

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

    People VS Leo Lian

    Uploaded by

    Taga DepEd Ako
    11 views2 pages
    The respondent was sentenced to reclusion perpetua for selling four tea bags of marijuana during a 1988 buy-bust operation. The respondent argued he should receive a lesser punishment under the Revised Penal Code. The court held that the respondent could avail of the lesser punishment under Article 22 of the RPC because Republic Act No. 7659, which amended drug laws, took effect in 1993 after the respondent was already serving his sentence. Thus, the respondent received an indeterminate penalty of arresto mayor or prision correctional instead of the full reclusion perpetua sentence. In a separate case, accused Leo Lian appealed his conviction for illegal possession of a firearm, arguing the trial court did not consider the indeterminate

    Original Title

    PEOPLE VS LEO LIAN

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The respondent was sentenced to reclusion perpetua for selling four tea bags of marijuana during a 1988 buy-bust operation. The respondent argued he should receive a lesser punishment under the Revised Penal Code. The court held that the respondent could avail of the lesser punishment under Article 22 of the RPC because Republic Act No. 7659, which amended drug laws, took effect in 1993 after the respondent was already serving his sentence. Thus, the respondent received an indeterminate penalty of arresto mayor or prision correctional instead of the full reclusion perpetua sentence. In a separate case, accused Leo Lian appealed his conviction for illegal possession of a firearm, arguing the trial court did not consider the indeterminate

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    11 views2 pages

    People VS Leo Lian

    Uploaded by

    Taga DepEd Ako
    The respondent was sentenced to reclusion perpetua for selling four tea bags of marijuana during a 1988 buy-bust operation. The respondent argued he should receive a lesser punishment under the Revised Penal Code. The court held that the respondent could avail of the lesser punishment under Article 22 of the RPC because Republic Act No. 7659, which amended drug laws, took effect in 1993 after the respondent was already serving his sentence. Thus, the respondent received an indeterminate penalty of arresto mayor or prision correctional instead of the full reclusion perpetua sentence. In a separate case, accused Leo Lian appealed his conviction for illegal possession of a firearm, arguing the trial court did not consider the indeterminate

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    PEOPLE VS.

    SIMON

    FACTS: The respondent was sentenced with the punishment of reclusion perpetua for violating
    the Dangerous Drug Act (RA No. 6425). He allegedly sold four tea bags of marijuana to a Narcotics
    Command during a buy-bust operation which was sold for P40.00. The said buy-bust operation was
    executed on or about October 22, 1988. In this case, the respondent was praying for a lesser
    punishment under the Revised Penal Code (RPC).

    ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent can avail of the lesser punishment pursuant to Art. 22 of
    the RPC.

    HELD: Yes, the respondent can avail of the lesser punishment prescribed by Art 22 of the RPC.
    Republic Act No. 7659 already took effect on December 31, 1993 after its publication on December 16,
    1993 while the respondent was still serving his sentence. Hence, the respondent was given an
    indeterminate penalty of arresto mayor or prision correctional instead of serving its full sentence of
    reclusion perpetua.
    PEOPLE VS. LEO LIAN

    FACTS: Accused-appellant Leo Lian y Verano bewails his Regional Trial Court, Branch 31, of
    Agoo, offense of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition punished by Section 1 of Presidential
    Decree No. 1866, That on or about the 27th day of June, 1990 in the Municipality of Pugo, Province of La
    Union, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused did
    then and there wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have in his actual possession, control, and custody,
    one (1) Caliber .45 pistol with Serial No. 603514 and one (1) live ammunition of the same caliber,
    without the corresponding license to possess the same and/or permit to carry it outside his residence.

    ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court erred in imposing penalty of the said accused and not
    considering indeterminate sentence law.

    HELD: Yes. In the case at bar, no mitigating or aggravating circumstances have been alleged or
    proved. In accordance with the doctrine regarding special laws explained in People vs. Simon,18
    although Presidential Decree No. 1866 is a special law, the penalties therein were taken from the
    Revised Penal Code, hence the rules in said Code for graduating by degrees or determining the proper
    period should be applied. Judgment of the trial court is hereby MODIFIED and accused-appellant Leo
    Lian y Verano is hereby sentenced to serve an indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years, and one (I) day of
    prision mayor, as minimum, to eighteen (18) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion
    temporal, as maximum.

    You might also like