Distinguish Between Recidivism And Quasi 3z414v

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 Arroyo’s resignation. He was then arrested and charged with conspiracy to commit coup d’etat. 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 coconspirators of the crime of conspiracy to commit coup d’etat. 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 d’etat. Hence, conspiracy to commit coup d’etat was not committed. (Art. 136, RPC).