Distinguish Between Recidivism and Quasi

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 2

Distinguish between recidivism

and quasi-recidivism; habitual


delinquency from recidivism.
(1986;
Quote

Post by hereford Wed Nov 02, 2016 11:34 am

A: In recidivism, the convictions of the offender are for crimes


embraced in the same Title of the Revised Penal Code and this
circumstance is generic aggravating and therefore can be offset by
an ordinary mitigating circumstance. Whereas, in quasi-recidivism,
the convictions are not for crimes embraced in the same title of
the Revised Penal Code, provided that it is a felony that was
committed by the offender before serving sentence by final
judgment for another crime or while serving sentence for another
crime and this circumstance is a special aggravating circumstance
which cannot be offset by any mitigating circumstance.

Meanwhile, the distinctions between habitual delinquency and


recidivism are the following:

1. In habitual delinquency, the crimes are specified, which are


robbery, theft, estafa, falsification, serious and less serious
physical injuries. In recidivism, the crimes are embraced in the
same title of the Revised Penal Code.

2. In recidivism, no period of time is fixed between the former


conviction and the last conviction. In habitual delinquency,
conviction of any of the specified crimes must take place within
10 years from the last conviction or release.

3. In recidivism, it is enough that there be a second conviction of


any crime embraced in the same title of the last or the first
crime. In habitual delinquency, there must be at least a third
conviction of any of the specified crimes.

4. Recidivism is an aggravating circumstance and if not offset,


serves to increase the penalty. Habitual Delinquency provides for
the imposition of additional penalty.

24. Brig. General Danilo Lim heads an elite Scout Ranger unit. In
conspiracy with other military officers, he planned and decided to
lead his men to an opposition rally and call for President Arroyos
resignation. He was then arrested and charged with conspiracy to
commit coup detat. If you were the judge, would you convict
Gen. Lim and his co-conspirators? Why and why not?

A: If I were the judge, I will not convict Gen. Lim and his co-
conspirators of the crime of conspiracy to commit coup detat.
While Gen. Lim, a person belonging to the military is actually in
conspiracy with other military officers, and their conspiracy is
directed against duly constituted authority of the Philippines, in
order to diminish if not to seize state power, their conspiracy was
only to stage a rally that would call for the resignation of the
President. It was not a conspiracy to make a swift attack,
accompanied by violence, intimidation, threat, strategy, or
stealth as in coup detat. Hence, conspiracy to commit coup
detat was not committed. (Art. 136, RPC).

You might also like