Foundations of Criminology

Antonio Villegas St.
, Mehan Gardens, Manila
PROBATION AND PAROLE IN

CRIMINAL JUSTICE
A Term paper
Submitted to: Dr. Gilbert San Diego MNSA
Faculty of the Graduate School
Universidad De Manila
In partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the course of Economics
Crime
Jessica Viena C Sari
Mikaila Ma. A Santiago
Beverly Joy C Nanglegan

Antonio Villegas St., Mehan Gardens, Manila
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
1.) Human trafficking………………………………………………....6
2.) Related Laws concerned in Human Trafficking………………7
3.) Government Agencies concerned Human Trafficking………9
4.) Problems and History……………………………………………11
5.) Difference between Human Trafficking and Smuggling……13
6.) Role of Police in Trafficking in Persons……………………….14
7.) Gun Smuggling…………………………………………………...17
8.) Weapons of Mass Destruction………………………………….21
9.) Phil. Gov’t effort Against in Armed Group…………………….23
10.) Directives……………………………………………………......25
Conclusion ……………………………………………………………27
Recommendation…………………………………………………….30
Bibliography…………………………………………………………..32
Curriculum Vitae……………………………………………………..33
What is a crime?
Crime is defined as an act committed or omitted violation of a
public law forbidding or commanding it. It is also ascribed to as an
act that violates the law of the nation. Preliterate culture dealt with
crime as a matter of personal offense and retribution. That most
offenses in primitive cultures were dealt with as private wrongs
does not signify that crime was privately defined. Generally,
however, community action was taken against the offender only in
those instances when he violated a religious taboo.
Who is a criminal?
From the legal viewpoint crime subsist when the person has
been proven guilty by the court. The main objective to this view is the
presumption of innocence as provided for by our 1987 Constitution,
that only after trial and the proof beyond reasonable doubt
established by the prosecution that the accused has committed it, can
very assume that the person is a criminal. From the scientific point of
view, crime exists when it is reported. This is more realistic but not
all reported cases are with sound basis of true happening.

Responding to a crime.
Through out man’s history from the ancient pre-literate culture
wherein a wrongful act of one considered as a crime today is viewed as
a personal offense and dealt with by vengeance. In the middle ages
wherein the world is influenced by Christian faith, crimes is viewed
more as bad, immoral hence similar in degree with sins which is
attributed to the devil, hence society responded to it with the
philosophy and approach which is to treat criminals and the
punishment is more of cleansing or redemption.
The advent of the school of thought in criminology ushered in
enlightenment and society chose to treat crimes in a way to reform
and rehabilitate the criminal offender by incarceration as a primary
means of punishment.
As modern criminology progress, today crime is dealt with by
the concept of restorative justice, wherein ways and means are
resorted to heal the broken social relationship and amicably settle
disputes between the offender and his/her victim.

What are the Schools of Thought in Criminology?
Classical School of Thought by BECARRIA. Accordingly to
criminologist Becarria, men are fundamentally a biological organism
with intelligence and rationality which control their behavior. Before
man tries to do something, he tries to resolve the amount of pain they
will suffer and the amount of pleasure they will receive. Their future
actions will depend on the balance of the two considerations if there
will be more pain than pleasure, they will desist from doing the act,
but if pleasure will exceed the pain they will carry on their plan to
commit the unlawful act. It concludes that, crime is caused by the
rational effort of men to augment their pleasure and to minimize their
pains.
Some of the noteworthy features of the classical school in criminology
include:
o All people are steered by free will
o All behavior is guided by hedonism (pleasure/pain calculation)
o All crime is the result of free will and hedonism

o All punishment should correspond to the offense (equal
treatment under law)
o Bad people are nothing more that the outcome of bad laws
Another major personage from the classical school is JEREMY
BENTHAM an Englishman (1748-1832). Bentham's book, An
Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation made the
following points:
o Society is based on social contract which convene for the
exchange of liberties for freedoms.
o All people being equally possessed of free will and the ability for
rational thought should be treated equally
o People should be treated with due process and they should have
civil rights; there should be rules of evidence.
o The law should be extensively known, this is referred to as
cognoscibility, or a person being "cognizant" of the law at all
times, at least in knowing what the actus reus is of each and
every crime.
o Utilitarianism (Bentham's version of hedonism) should be the
basis of social supremacy as it is for most human behavior
o Punishment should be the minimum required to discourage the
individual and others from doing or mimicking it.

o Judges should not enjoy too much discretion in sentencing;
sentences should be about equal for equal crime (determinate
sentencing)
Neo-Classical School of Thought: This explanation accepts the fact
that crimes are committed in accordance with the free will of men but
the act of committing a crime is modified by some causes that finally
prevail upon the person to commit crimes. These causes are
pathology, incompetence, insanity or any condition that will make it
possible for the individual to exercise free will entirely. In the study of
legal provisions this is termed as either mitigating or exempting
circumstances. The Neoclassical School of Thought emerged between
1880 and 1920 it stressed individual accountability and
individualization of punishment. Its leading proponents were figures
such as Gabriel Tarde (1843-1904) and his pupil Raymond Saleilles
(1898).
The general features of neoclassicism include:
o Character (not free will nor determinism) is the cause of
criminality
o Crime and punishment should be equivalent, not essentially
proportional or "fitting"
o Imprisonment should be the customary method of punishment
o Treatment should be individualized, according to the
incorrigibility of temperament.
o Every punishment should consist of a measure of deterrence,
exemplary but not vengeful (except for the insane who should be
treated by other experts)
o Abolition of the death penalty
The explanation that criminals are born (Positive School of Thought)
by Cesare Lombroso, 1835-1909.The positive school consists of the
following:
study first the natural origin of crime and then its social and legal
consequences in order to provide, by social and legal means, the
various remedies which will have the greatest effect on the various
causes that produced it. The "positivist school" was a social movement
that existed during the mid 1800s and early 1900s. The part of it that
was "positive" was the forward-looking attitude toward social and
personal betterment, the perfectibility of both society and human
nature. Similar to what we mean when we use the phrase Positive Law
or using law to change society.

The term "positivism" refers to a method of analysis based on the
collection of observable scientific facts. Its aim is to explain and most
importantly predict the way facts occur in uniform patterns.
Positivism is the basis of most natural sciences, and positivist
criminology is the application of positivist methods to the study of
people. The positivist school is best seen as a reaction to the armchair
philosophy and theorizing of the classical school.
Some of the common, defining features of the positivist school in
criminology include:
o The demand for facts and for scientific proof (determinism)
o There are body and mind differences between people (of these,
the mens rea, or intent or reasons for committing crime are
important)
o Punishment should fit the individual criminal, not the crime
(indeterminate sentencing, disparate sentencing, parole)
o The criminal justice system should be guided by scientific
specialists (rule by scientific elite, technocracy).
o Criminals can be treated, rehabilitated, or corrected (if not, then
they are incurable and should be put to death)
According to Cesare Lombroso, who is considered the father of
modern criminology, criminals are born with some physical,

characteristics which become the causes of crimes. He advanced the
following explanations to such causes :
o Criminals have a distinctive physical type;
o That there is a conspicuous born criminal type;
o That this type can be recognized by certain stigma or anomalies;
o That the stigmata are not the causes of crime but rather the
symptoms of atavism or reversion of his body to his ape-like
ancestors;
o That criminals are evolutionary degenerates;
o That this atavism and degeneracy of the body are the causes of
crime; and
o That the person who is a born criminal type cannot desist from
committing crime unless he lives under exceptionally favorable
circumstances.
There are four classes of criminals: born (atavists), insane, occasional
(criminaloids-with some atavistic characteristics, some environmental
factors), and passion.
Lombroso's Checklist of Physiognomic Indicators:
o Unusually short or tall height,
o Small head, but large face,
o Small and sloping forehead,
o Receding hairline,
o Wrinkles on forehead and face,
o Large sinus cavities or bumpy face,
o Large, protruding ears,
o Bumps on head, particularly the Destructiveness Center behind
ear,
o Protuberances (bumps) on head,
o High check bones,
o Bushy eyebrows,
o Large eye sockets,
o Deep, beady eyes,
o Beaked nose (up or down) or flat nose,
o Strong jaw line,
o Fleshy lips, but thin upper lip,
o Mighty incisors, abnormal teeth,
o Small or weak chin,
o Thin neck,
o Sloping shoulders, but large chest,
o Long arms,
o Pointy, webby, snubby fingers or toes,
o Tattoos on body,
o Supernumerary fingers and toes,
o Asymmetry of the face,
o Unusual size of the ears,
o Abnormality of the feet,
o Imbalance of the hemisphere of the brain.
American Criminal Justice
Defined as “… The machinery of the state or government which
enforces the rules of conduct necessary to protect life, liberty and
property and maintain peace and order”. “Criminal Justice comprises
all the means used to enforce those standards of conduct which are
deemed necessary to protect individual and to maintain general
community well-being. In broad terms, a system of criminal justice
creates the laws governing social behavior, attempt to prevent
violation of the laws, and apprehends, judges, and punishes those
who do violate them.
Justice - Is a social norm providing guidance for people in their
dealings with one another; as a standard against which actions are
evaluated; and as a prescription for requirement that people act justly
Law is the instrument in achieving justice, a major input in the
criminal justice system. Law is society’s primary instrument for

making known what acts are considered crime and what sanctions
may be applied to those who commit acts defined as crimes.
The three Components or Processes of Criminal Justice System of
in the United State are as follows:
o Police or Law Enforcement
o Courts
o Correction or Correctional Institution
As a system, criminal justice is made up of a set of interesting
components-that is, all the institution and processes by which
decisions are made, for criminal justice to achieve its goals, each part
must make its own contribution. None can function without some
degree of contract with at least one other part. To group what it is that
they do, we must look at their relationship with another: the police
with prosecution, probation officers with judges.
Entering the System.
The prevention and control of crime and juvenile delinquency are not
the sole task of the government, much less the agency of the criminal
justice system alone. Questions of a major policy for achieving the
objectives and ideals of the prevention and control of crime and
delinquency, undoubtedly, require the coordination of effort and

teamwork not only among the police, prosecution, courts and
correctional agencies but he active participation of the community as
well.
The criminal justice system start to function at the time a person has
violated or seem to wilfully disobeyed the law. It commences with the
arrest stage wherein the suspect is lawfully taken away from the
community to be under the custody of the police while the case is
under investigation, to the time proper charges are filed with the
district attorney, the equivalent American office for prosecutor until
trial, judgment, corrections and eventual return to the community as
a reformed and free individual.
Pre- Trial Court appearances.
The American system provides for a pre-trial conference similar with
the Philippine version of talking and agreeing with the facts and
issues to be raised during the trial, the stipulation of facts by both the
defense side and the district attorney. It is also an opportunity to
settle amicably disputes and resolve matters before going to trial such
as entering a plea of guilty for a lesser felony as in homicide for man’s
slaughter.
Trial or guilty plea.
Whether or not the accused in a criminal charge pleads guilty, trial
commences. In the event of a denial to the charge which means the

suspect entered a plea of not guilty, trial commences with the
prosecution first establishing its case and presents evidence to prove
the charge. In the event of a guilty plea, the order of trial is reversed
when a lawful defense is to be taken as in cases of self defense.
Sentencing.
After the case is heard on the merits. The jury will decide whether to
hold the suspect, guilty as charge or set him/her free. In the event of
a guilty adjudication, the decision of the jury on the penalty and the
damages woud be read.
The judgment is promulgated by reading it in the presence of the
accused and any judge of the court in which it was rendered.
However, if the conviction is for a light offense, the judgment may be
pronounced in the presence of his counsel or representative. When the
judge is absent or outside the province or city, the judgment may be
promulgated by the clerk of court.
Appeal
Any party may appeal from a judgment or final order, unless the
accused will be placed in double jeopardy. If personal service of the
copy of the notice of appeal can not be made upon the adverse party
or his counsel, service may be done by registered mail. The appellee
may waive his right to a notice that an appeal has been taken. The
appellate court may, in its discretion, entertain an appeal
notwithstanding failure to give such notice if the interests of justice so
require. An appeal must be taken within fifteen (15) days from
promulgation of the judgment or from notice of the final order
appealed from. This period for perfecting an appeal shall be
suspended from the time a motion for new trial or reconsideration is
filed until notice of the order overruling the motion has been served
upon the accused or his counsel at which time the balance of the
period begins to run.
Probation
Probation is a vital component of the correctional system. It is a
phase of Penology, which must be viewed in its relation to other
aspects of law enforcement and its proper perspective.
As a form of treatment for convicted criminal offenders,
probation is regarded as a substitute for imprisonment rather than
clemency, leniency or pity. Some offenders who are less injured to
crime are better off to remain in the community and should be given a
chance to reform themselves and to conform to the demands and

norms of society after their conviction. Others on the other hand,
must go to prison to undergo rehabilitation for their own good and
primarily for the benefit of society due to the fact that their presence
in the community will pose a threat to law and order.
Probation is given to criminal offenders whose cases wherein the
ends of justice do not require imprisonment. This will be granted
when the conditions imposed by law are met and on the premise that
the offender would reform himself, that there is no manifested danger
to society and that the crime in which they were convicted is not
abhorrent to members of society.
PAROLE
Form of supervised conditional liberty from prison granted prior
to the expiration of the sentence. As a form of correctional treatment,
parole is designed to enhance the protection of the community
through the supervision and rehabilitation of selected offenders
following their release from prison. The modern use of parole as a
correctional method stems from a change in penal philosophy to
emphasize reform and rehabilitation rather than retribution and
punishment.
Parole systems are usually administered by the
ministry/department of justice, although in Mexico and South Africa
the program is run by the ministry of welfare. In a few countries,
parole is a function of the judiciary. Eligibility for parole is governed
by statutes that provide either definite or indeterminate sentences and
define offenses for which parole may be granted. In some jurisdictions,
eligibility for parole is prohibited by statute for offenders convicted of
such serious crimes as narcotics peddling, armed robbery,
kidnapping, rape, or murder.
Parole supervision ranges from little more than a periodic police
check to intensive supervision by trained personnel. Conditions of
parole vary widely but usually define minimum standards of conduct,
delimit freedom of movement, and require the parolee to report
regularly to a parole officer. Violation of the conditions of parole may
constitute grounds for parole revocation and re-incarceration.
PROBATION AND THE COURTS

HISTORY OF PROBATION: Probation is a judicial disposition after
which the dependant after conviction and sentence is released,
subject to the conditions imposed by the court and the supervision of
the probation officer. It said to have originated in England in the year
1841.
Matthew Davenport Hill (August 6, 1792 - June 7, 1872) was an
English lawyer and penologist. Taking an interest in questions relating
to the treatment of criminal offenders, he publicly aired opinions
which were the means of introducing many important reforms in the
methods of dealing with crime.
Matthew Devenport Hill an English magistrate practiced his
methods which includes suspending judgment and releasing the
convicts in his own recognizance with a pledge not to commit any
crimes. Held as the father of probation in England he worked for the
guardianship of parents and employers of juvenile and first time
offenders to save them from the stigma of prison life.

One of his principal coadjutors in these reforms was his brother
Frederick Hill (1803-1896), whose Amount, Causes and Remedies of
Crime, the result of his experience as inspector of prisons for
Scotland. This marked an era in the methods of prison discipline. Hill
was one of the chief promoters of the Society for the Diffusion of
Useful Knowledge, and the originator of the Penny Magozine.
At about the same time, John Augustus, a shoemaker from
Boston, Massachusetts, USA started the rudimentary form of
probation. His method of providing bail for temporary suspension or
postponement of sentence during which he offered assistance by way
of counsel, finding homes, securing employment and helping the
offenders solve their family difficulties in adjustment. He interceded
for youthful offenders and alcoholics and placed them in his charge.
Much of his practical approach is still being utilized and adopted by
probation officers worldwide in the form of preliminary social
investigation, interviewing, family casework, foster home placement.
John Augustus a Boston shoe cobbler was held as The “Father
of Probation”. Even though there were traces of practices similar to his
system of probation dating back to 437 B.C.
The John Augustus plan for behavior rehabilitation. In fact
John August coined the word “probation” which he derived from the
Latin word “probare” which means “to prove, to test”.

In 1887, a law was passed in providing for the appointment of a
probation officer for the city of Boston. Edward N. Savage a former
Boston chief of police was named probation officer and was held as
the first probation officer employed by the government.
Probation was first introduced in the Philippines during the
American colonial period (1898 - 1945) with the enactment of Act No.
4221 of the Philippine Legislature on 7 August 1935. This law created
a Probation Office under the Department of Justice. On November 16,
1937, after barely two years of existence, the Supreme Court of the
Philippines declared the Probation Law unconstitutional because of
some defects in the law's procedural framework. In the celebrated case
of People vs. Vera, 376 O.G. 164. The Supreme Court penned down a
decision declaring the said law as unconstitutional on the ground that
it was considered class legislation, it encroached upon the pardoning
power of the chief executive and violated the equal protection clause.
In 1972, House Bill No. 393 was filed in Congress, which would
establish a probation system in the Philippines. This bill avoided the
objectionable features of Act 4221 that struck down the 1935 law as
unconstitutional.
The bill was passed by the House of Representatives, but was
pending in the Senate when Martial Law was declared and Congress
was abolished. Briefly after World War II, the extensive use of
probation spread throughout the world. The trend of corrections
moved toward the constructive treatment of offenders outside prison
walls. It was attributed to the increase of social services and the
improvement of casework methods. Briefly after World War II, the
extensive use of probation spread throughout the world. The trend of
corrections moved toward the constructive treatment of offenders
outside prison walls. It was attributed to the increase of social services
and the improvement of casework methods.
Aware of the needs of the criminal justice system of the country,
Congressmen Teodulo C. Natividad, and Ramon D. Bagatsing
introduced House Bill 393 entitled “ An Act Establishing Probation in
the Philippines; Providing Probation Officers Therefore and for Other
Purposes.”
The turning point of the Probation law came on November 13,
1974 when Juan Ponce Enrile, National Defense Secretary and
concurrent chairman of the National Police Commission created the
Inter-Disciplinary Committee on Crime Prevention. Commissioner
Teodulo Natividad was appointed chairman, with four members
representing the criminal justice system they were tasked to draft the
adult probation decree.
In 1975, the National Police Commission Interdisciplinary
drafted a Probation Law. After 18 technical hearings over a period of

six months, the draft decree was presented to a selected group of 369
jurists, penologists, civic leaders and social and behavioral scientists
and practitioners. The group overwhelmingly indorsed the
establishment of an Adult Probation System in the country.
On his assumption as NAPOLCOM Chairman early January
1976, Natividad created a technical national strategy to reduce crime.
A seminar on the Probation system was conducted on April 26 1976
under the auspices of the IDC sponsored by the NAPOLCOM and the
Integrated National Police. It was held at the University of the
Philippines Law Center, and was participated by a total number of
369 delegates from the five pillars of the criminal justice system. The
draft or proposal of the adult probation decree after careful review by
the multi-sectoral experts gained favorable support. The final draft
was approved by the NAPOLCOM and was favorably indorsed by the
Secretary of National Defense and the Secretary of Justice to President
Ferdinand E. Marcos. The Supreme Court after scrutiny favored the
adoption of the Probation Law and it played a vital role in the final
approval of the Probation Law.
On July 22-24, 1976, the First National Conference on a
Strategy to Reduce Crime was held at Camp Aguinaldo. The forum

was attended by nearly 800 participants. It was during the final day of
the conference, the historic signing of Presidential Decree 968,
otherwise known as the Probation Law of 1976 was signed into law by
His Excellency Ferdinand E. Marcos. On 24 July 1976, Presidential
Decree No. 968, also known as Adult Probation Law of 1976, was
signed into Law by the President of the Philippines.
The operationalization of the probation system in 1976-1977
was a massive undertaking during which all judges and prosecutors
nationwide were trained in probation methods and procedures;
administrative and procedural manuals were developed; probation
officers recruited and trained, and the central agency and probation
field offices organized throughout the country. Fifteen selected
probation officers were sent to U.S.A. for orientation and training in
probation administration. Upon their return, they were assigned to
train the newly recruited probation officers.
The probation system started to operate on 3 January 1978. As
more probation officers were recruited and trained, more field offices
were opened. There are at present 204 field offices spread all over the
country, supervised by 15 regional offices.
FORERUNNERS OF PROBATION:
The following practices were regarded by penologists as the precursors
for probation:
(1) Benefit of the clergy- during the time where the influence of
the church has been so vast that even monarchs follow its
decree, an erring member of the clergy who has been brought to
trial to be examined by the king’s court may be claimed by the
bishop or chaplain on the grounds that clergymen are subject to
the authority and jurisdiction of ecclesiastical courts. Leniency
has been manifested in sentencing of said offenders if found
guilty by a jury consisting of 12 clerks.
(2) Judicial Reprieve- Another means of reducing the severity of
penalties and harshness of punishment was a temporary
suspension of the sentence imposed by the court, this would
provide the convicted offender ample time to petition the crown
for either an absolute pardon or conditional pardon. English
courts had practiced said method when death penalty has been
imposed under the condition that said offenders accept exile or
deportation.
(3) Recognizance- This was viewed as the practice which led to
the development of probation service in the year 1861. It is an
old method of deferring judgment involving an obligation or
promise on the part of the offender sworn under court order not
to violate any law in the future and release is obtained granting
that those conditions were met.
(4) Transportation- this refers to the old practice of exile or
banishment which lasted for an approximate period covering
two centuries as the primary method of dealing with criminal
offenders. Colonies who benefited from this method of
dispensing with prisoners got cheaper labor as a substitute for a
harsh penalty. The continent of Australia and the South
America were the usual destination for transported prisoners.

COURT SYSTEMS
JURISDICTION
Courts or tribunals refer to a branch of government established
to administer the civil and criminal law. The term court is also applied
to the international tribunals intended to grant for the resolution at
law of controversies among governments, namely, the Permanent
Court of International Justice, established by the League of Nations
after World War I, and by the International Court of Justice,
established by the United Nations after World War II.
The more usual general classifications are courts of record and
courts not of record; courts of superior jurisdiction and courts of
inferior jurisdiction; trial courts and appellate courts; and civil courts
and criminal courts.
In courts of record the proceedings are recorded entirely; no
detailed record is made of the proceedings in courts not of record.
Police and magistrate's courts in the United States are in nearly all
cases courts not of record.
Courts of superior jurisdiction, often referred to as higher courts
or appellate courts, are generally those to which appeals are made
from decisions of courts of inferior jurisdiction, referred to as lower
courts, inferior courts or trial courts.

Civil and criminal courts deal with cases arising from violations
of the civil law and the criminal law, respectively. The judicial organs
of military institutions are called military courts.
Courts with special, limited jurisdictions are known by the
names of those jurisdictions. For example, probate or surrogate's
courts are tribunals dealing with the probate of wills and the
disposition of estates; military courts have jurisdiction over violations
by military personnel; and admiralty courts have jurisdiction over
cases arising from maritime contracts and from violations of maritime
law.
Other courts are designated by the territorial limits of their
jurisdictions. Included in this classification are the territorial and
state courts of the United States and the county courts of the U.S.
and Great Britain. Municipal courts usually are criminal courts;
however, a number have restricted civil jurisdiction.
The recognized existence of even ancient courts implies a
relatively high degree of social organization and the need for
systematic adjudication of disputes on the basis of established
customs and consciously formulated rules of social conduct.

Archaeologists and anthropologists have recognized the
existence of courts in simple societies over wide areas of Asia, Africa,
and Europe; courts were not as widespread among the Native
Americans of North and South America.
Primitive courts formed part of a complex social structure in
which administrative, judicial, and religious functions were combined.
These courts were held in the open or in religious temples and more
often than not, the judges or magistrates were priests. Those who
attended were recognized as part of the court, whether or not they had
an immediate interest in the proceedings or in the judgments
rendered. The proceedings consisted in large part of rituals intended
to secure the redress of grievances presented by individuals against
other individuals.
In the highly developed civilizations of antiquity, particularly
those of Assyria and Egypt, judicial and executive functions were
undifferentiated and were centralized in the monarch as head of state.
Insight into the organization and functions of Babylonian courts of the
18th century BC was obtained when the ancient legal document
known as the Code of Hammurabi was discovered early in the 20th
century.
In the judicial system of ancient Athens, a distinctive feature,
introduced by the lawgiver Solon in the 6th century BC, was the right
of aggrieved litigants to appeal the decisions of magistrates to the
people of Athens, assembled as a heliaia (“public assembly”).
In later years, these assemblies, referred to as heliastic courts,
became courts of first resort presided over by judges who prepared
cases for trial. The heliastic courts consequently became unwieldy,
and they were divided into sections called dicasteries.
The evolution of courts in ancient Rome was evident by the
development of a complex structure in which criminal, civil, and other
jurisdictions were differentiated and were exercised by separate courts
and officials.
Violations of criminal law were prosecuted by the state; higher
and lower courts were organized; the right of appeal was judicially
assured; and a corps of professional jurists was established for the
first time in the history of Mediterranean civilization.
After Christianity became the state religion of Rome, the
ecclesiastical courts, established by Christians who had refused to

have recourse to pagan courts, became a part of the Roman legal
system. As the Roman Empire disintegrated, the ecclesiastical courts
survived and assumed jurisdiction over secular affairs.
Medieval courts were a consequence of the tribal courts of the
Germanic peoples, among whom the highest judicial authority was
that of the popular assemblies that met regularly throughout the year.
The tribal magistrates supervised the proceedings and executed the
judgments rendered by the assemblies. During the progress of the
Germanic tribal organization into territorial states, the primitive tribal
courts underwent a corresponding evolution, increasing in number
and becoming differentiated. Among the new qualities of this Teutonic
system were a royal court, presided over by the king and patterned
after the Roman system of courts; special lower courts under the
control of royal officials who were called Grafen, which handled minor
matters; and, later, a corps of permanent lay judges, with power to
render judgments.
In the 8th century, when the Germanic territorial states were
part of the realm of Charlemagne, the Teutonic judicial system
experienced a further momentous development: the practice, initiated

by Charlemagne, of dispatching royal commissioners to examine the
functioning of local courts and, when necessary, to supplement the
justice they dispensed. In this improvement were the seeds of three
later important legal developments: assize courts, circuit courts, anda
central legal authority.
A significant innovation during the reign of Edward I was
provision for doing justice in situations in which the common law
failed to afford a remedy to aggrieved litigants. This supplemental
procedure of justice was administered by the Crown through the Lord
Chancellor and was called chancery, or equity, jurisprudence.
In the centuries after the signing of the Magna Carta,
Parliament attained appellate jurisdiction over both civil and criminal
cases. This function was subsequently confined to the House of Lords
and has survived to the present day. In 1701, Parliament enacted
legislation establishing tenure of office for judges and made their
removal from office conditional on the concurrence of Parliament, thus
completing the separation of judicial from executive and legislative
governmental powers.
In France, the development of the judicial system after the
break-up of the Carolingian Empire was comparable to that in

England: Both involved the vesting of central legal authority in the
Crown after a prolonged struggle with feudal manorial courts. The
basic features of the judicial system now in effect in France were
established after the French Revolution of 1789 by the Code Napoleon.
This system consists of lower courts of wide jurisdiction, intermediate
courts of appeal, a court to resolve jurisdictional conflicts among
courts, and a supreme appellate tribunal called the Court of
Cassation. Many European and Latin American judicial systems are
patterned on that of France.
In the Islamic world, the Koran is the source of law; justice
traditionally has been dispensed by specially trained priests in
conjunction with the king, or sultan.
In the 20th century, this system still exists in such Islamic
countries as Yemen and Saudi Arabia. In Turkey, however, executive,
legislative, and judicial functions have been separated, and a judicial
system similar to those of Western countries has developed.
In other Middle Eastern and Asian countries that have attained
independence since World War II, notably Sri Lanka, India, and Israel,
the courts also function similarly to those of the West, that is, as
relatively independent institutions within a parliamentary framework.

In Communist countries, the judicial system was usually
patterned after that of the USSR, which integrated a hierarchy of
courts culminating in a supreme court. In the former Yugoslavia, all
judges, even those of the highest tribunals, were elected, not
appointed.
In the Philippines, legal power which is vested in the Supreme
Court, Court of Appeals, Regional Trial Courts and such other Inferior
Courts as may be established by law
The Federal Courts
The federal judiciary of the United States is one of the three co-equal
branches of the Federal government of the United States organized
under the United States Constitution and laws of the federal
government. Article III of the Constitution requires the establishment
of a Supreme Court and permits the Congress to create other federal
courts, and place limitations on their jurisdiction. Article III Federal
judges are appointed by the President with the consent of
the Senate to serve until they resign, are impeached and convicted,
retire, or die.
The federal courts are composed of three levels of courts.
The Supreme Court of the United States is the court of last resort. It is

generally an appellate court that operates under discretionary review,
which means that the Court can choose which cases to hear, by
granting of writs of certiorari. There is generally no right of appeal to
the Supreme Court. In a few situations (like lawsuits between state
governments or some cases between the federal government and a
state) it sits as a court of original jurisdiction.
The United States courts of appeals are the intermediate federal
appellate courts. They operate under a system of mandatory review
which means they must hear all appeals of right from the lower
courts. In some cases, Congress has diverted appellate jurisdiction to
specialized courts, such as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
of Review.
The United States district courts (one in each of the 94 federal
judicial districts, as well three territorial courts) are general federal
trial courts, although in many cases Congress has diverted original
jurisdiction to specialized courts, such as the Court of International
Trade, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the Alien Terrorist
Removal Court, or to Article I or Article IV tribunals. The district
courts usually have jurisdiction to hear appeals from such tribunals
(unless, for example, appeals are to the Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit.)
Federal judges, like Supreme Court Justices, are appointed by
the President with the consent of the Senate to serve until they resign,
are impeached and convicted, retire, or die.
In April 2013, about 10 percent of federal seats were vacant,
with 85 of 856 positions unfilled and 4 vacancies on the
prestigious Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The
high vacancy rate has been attributed to politics, particularly Senate
filibustering of potential appointees by Senators.
In many cases there is no nominee for the position; however, the
Senate has a tradition of senatorial courtesy in which nominees are
only considered if the home senators approve. In May
2013 Congressional Research Service published a paper analyzing the
vacancies and appointment process.
Under Article I of the federal Constitution, Congress also has
the power to establish other tribunals, which are usually quite
specialized, within the executive branch to assist the President in the
execution of his powers. Judges who staff them normally serve terms
of fixed duration, as do magistrate judges who assist Article III judges.
Judges in Article I tribunals attached to executive branch agencies are
referred to as administrative law judges (ALJs) and are generally
considered to be part of the executive branch even though they
exercise quasi-judicial powers. With limited exceptions, they cannot
render final judgments in cases involving life, liberty, and private

property rights, but may make preliminary rulings subject to review
by an Article III judge.
Legal procedure
The Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution as placing
some additional restrictions on the federal courts. For example, the
doctrines of mootness, ripeness, and standingprohibit district courts
from issuing advisory opinions. Other doctrines, such as
the abstention doctrine and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine limit the
power of lower federal courts to disturb rulings made by state courts.
The Erie doctrine requires federal courts to apply substantive state
law to claims arising from state law (which may be heard in federal
courts under supplemental or diversity jurisdiction). In difficult cases,
the federal courts must either guess as to how a court of that state
would decide the issue or, if that state acceptscertified questions from
federal courts when state law is unclear or uncertain, ask an appellate
court of that state to decide the issue.

Notably, the only federal court that can issue proclamations of
federal law that bind state courts is the Supreme Court itself.
Decisions of the lower federal courts, whether on issues of federal law
or state law (i.e., the question was not certified to a state court), are
persuasive but not binding authority in the states in which those
federal courts sit.
Some commentators assert that another limitation upon federal
courts is executive nonacquiescence in judicial decisions, where the
executive simply refuses to accept them asbinding precedent.[5][6] In
the context of administration of U.S. internal revenue laws by the
Internal Revenue Service, nonacquiescences (published in a series of
documents called Actions on Decisions) "generally do not affect the
application of stare decisis or the rule of precedent". The IRS "will
recognize these principles and generally concede issues accordingly
during administrative proceedings." In rare cases, however, the IRS
may continue to litigate a legal issue in a given circuit even where the
IRS has already lost a case on that issue in that circuit.
The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land in the
United States. It creates a federal system of government in which

power is shared between the federal government and the state
governments. Due to federalism, both the federal government and
each of the state governments have their own court systems. Discover
the differences in structure, judicial selection, and cases heard in
both systems.
Court Structure
The Federal Court System The State Court System
Article III of the Constitution The Constitution and laws of each
invests the judicial power of the state establish the state courts. A
United States in the federal court court of last resort, often known
system. Article III, Section 1 as a Supreme Court, is usually
specifically creates the U.S. the highest court. Some states
Supreme Court and gives also have an intermediate Court of
Congress the authority to create Appeals. Below these appeals
the lower federal courts. courts are the state trial courts.
Some are referred to as Circuit or

District Courts.
Congress has used this power to States also usually have courts
establish the 13 U.S. Courts of that handle specific legal matters,
Appeals, the 94 U.S. District e.g., probate court (wills and
Courts, the U.S. Court of Claims, estates); juvenile court; family
and the U.S. Court of court; etc.
International Trade. U.S.
Bankruptcy Courts handle
bankruptcy cases. Magistrate
Judges handle some District
Court matters.
Parties dissatisfied with a decision Parties dissatisfied with the
of a U.S. District Court, the U.S. decision of the trial court may
Court of Claims, and/or the U.S. take their case to the intermediate
Court of International Trade may Court of Appeals.
appeal to a U.S. Court of Appeals.
A party may ask the U.S. Parties have the option to ask the
Supreme Court to review a highest state court to hear the

decision of the U.S. Court of case.
Appeals, but the Supreme Court
usually is under no obligation to
do so. The U.S. Supreme Court is
the final arbiter of federal
constitutional questions.

Only certain cases are eligible for
review by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Selection of Judges
The Federal Court System The State Court System
The Constitution states that State court judges are selected in a variety
federal judges are to be nominated of ways, including
by the President and confirmed by

- election,
the Senate.
- appointment for a given number of years,
- appointment for life, and

They hold office during good
- combinations of these methods, e.g.,

behavior, typically, for life.
appointment followed by election.
Through Congressional
impeachment proceedings, federal
judges may be removed from office
for misbehavior.
Types of Cases Heard
The Federal Court The State Court System
System
- Cases that deal with - Most criminal cases, probate (involving wills and
the constitutionality of estates)
a law;
- Most contract cases, tort cases (personal injuries),
- Cases involving the family law (marriages, divorces, adoptions), etc.
laws and treaties of the

State courts are the final arbiters of state laws and
U.S.;
constitutions. Their interpretation of federal law or the
- Cases involving U.S. Constitution may be appealed to the U.S.
ambassadors and Supreme Court. The Supreme Court may choose to
hear or not to hear such cases.

public ministers;
- Disputes between two
or more states;
- Admiralty law;
- Bankruptcy; and
- Habeas corpus
issues.
Juvenile delinquency is an anti-social behavior or act which
differs from the normal model of set of laws and parameters, culture,
custom which society in broad-spectrum does not conform. Juvenile
delinquency generally refers to youth behavior which is against norm
and regulations of society, which if left unchecked would give rise to
criminality.
The prevention of juvenile delinquency is an essential part of
crime prevention in society. The saying an ounce of prevention is
better than a pound of cure would clearly manifest the importance of
misbehavior deterrence among our youth.
By engaging in lawful, socially useful activities and adopting a
humanistic orientation towards society and outlook on life, young
persons can develop non-criminogenic attitudes. The successful

prevention of juvenile delinquency requires efforts on the part of the
entire society to ensure the harmonious development of adolescents,
with respect for and promotion of their personality from early
childhood.
Young persons should have an active role and partnership
within society and should not be considered as mere objects of control
and socialization. Furthermore, the well-being of young persons from
their early childhood should be the focus of any preventive program.
THE NATURE OF DELINQUENCY
Children were treated as non-persons until the 1700's. They did
not receive special treatment or respect. Discipline at that time is
what we now describe as abuse. There were some major theories
about life before the 1700's. The first assumption is that life was
difficult, and you had to be fierce to survive. The people of that period
in history did not have the conveniences that we take for granted. For
example, the medical practices of that day were primitive in
comparison to present-day medicine. Marriages were more for
convenience, rather than for child-bearing or romance.
The second notion was that infant and child mortality were
high. It did not make sense to the parents in those days to create an
emotional bond with children. There was a strong chance that the
children would not survive until adulthood.
The beginning of Childhood.
At the end of the 18th century, "The Enlightenment" appeared
as a new cultural transition. This period of history is sometimes
known as the beginning of humanism and reason. People began to see
children as flowers, which needed fostering in order to bloom. It was
the invention of childhood, love and nurturing instead of beatings to
stay in line. The youth had finally begun to emerge as a distinct
group. It started with the upper-class, who was permitted to attend
colleges and universities.
Innovations
Throughout all time there has been delinquency. It may not
have had the delinquency label, but it still existed. In ancient Britain,
children at the age of seven were tried, convicted, and punished as
adults. There was no special treatment for them, a hanging was a
hanging. This dates back with the classical period. Juvenile crime is
mentioned as far back as ancient Sumeria and Hammurabi, where
laws concerning juvenile offenders first appear in written form.
Industrialization.
Industrialization set into motion the practices needed for
modern juvenile delinquency. The country had gone from agriculture
to machine-based labor-intensive production. Subsistence farming
quickly turned into profit making. People who were displaced from
their farm work because of machinery were migrating to the city to
find work. This led to urbanization in such places as Chicago, which
in turn caused the cities to burst at the seams.
Urbanization.
There was a massive increase in the amount of movable goods
that were produced. These transient goods were easy to steal. The
stealing of these goods made property crime rise immensely in these
urban centers. The wealth of the upper-class increased, and stealing
became a way of living. These large urban centers also produced
another problem. The work place was now estranged from the home.
During the tough times both parents took employment. There was
also very little for the youths to do, especially when school was not in
session. It was then that youths were becoming increasingly
unsupervised. These youths were largely unemployed. Without
supervision, and with movable goods easily available, stealing became
a way of life.
The massive influx of people to these urban areas overwhelmed
society. The factories could not keep up, and unemployment became a
factor. Poverty became widespread.
Salvage Attempts.
Poorhouses were created to keep youthful offenders away from
trouble. The idea behind them was to take the children of the
"dangerous" classes out of their "dangerous environment." Kids were
thought to be salvageable needed to be saved. The majority of these
children were rounded up for the crime of being poor, not because
they committed a crime. These houses, sometimes referred as reform
schools, were very harsh. This was contradictory to the ideas the they
needed nurturing and love. In New York, houses of refuge were
created to do the same. The houses eventually became overfilled, and
children were sent out West as indentured servants. As many as

50,000 children were shipped out. Some of them never were allowed to
have contact with their parents again.
Industrialization and urbanization played a tremendous role in
the modern era of Juvenile Delinquency. A lot of these factors are true
today. Many more farms are going bankrupt. Unemployment is still a
factor with the youth of today. We are a culture that values material
wealth over and above all. Youth who have no money to live the way
they want will often turn to crime as a way to satisfy themselves. As
our nation changes, the way in which juveniles are treated will also
have to change. The current trends in Juvenile Delinquency have an
impact on how we view the problem.
Children Below the Age of Criminal Responsibility.– If it has been
determined that the child taken into custody is fifteen (15) years old or
below, the authority which will have an initial contact with the child
has the duty to immediately release the child to the custody of his/her
parents or guardian, or in the absence thereof, the child’s nearest
relative. Said authority shall give notice to the local social welfare and
development officer who will determine the appropriate programs in
consultation with the child and to the person having custody over the
child. If the parents, guardians or nearest relatives cannot be located,
or if they refuse to take custody, the child may be released to any of

the following: a duly registered nongovernmental or religious
organization; a barangay official or a member of the Barangay Council
for the Protection of Children (BCPC); a local social welfare and
development officer; or, when and where appropriate, the DSWD.
Procedure for Taking the Child into Custody. – From the moment
a child is taken into custody, the law enforcement officer shall:
(a) Explain to the child in simple language and in a dialect that
he/she can understand why he/she is being placed under
custody and the offense that he/she allegedly committed;
(b) Inform the child of the reason for such custody and advise
the child of his/her constitutional rights in a language or dialect
understood by him/her;
(c) Properly identify himself/herself and present proper
identification to the child;
(d) Refrain from using vulgar or profane words and from
sexually harassing or abusing, or making sexual advances on
the child in conflict with the law;

(e) Avoid displaying or using any firearm, weapon, handcuffs or
other instruments of force or restraint, unless absolutely
necessary and only after all other methods of control have been
exhausted and have failed;
(f) Refrain from subjecting the child in conflict with the law to
greater restraint than is necessary for his/her apprehension;
(g) Avoid violence or unnecessary force;
(h) Determine the age of the child pursuant to Section 7 of this
Act;
(i) Immediately but not later than eight (8) hours after
apprehension, turn over custody of the child to the social
welfare and development office or other accredited non-
government organizations, and notify the child’s
parents/guardians and Public Attorney’s Office of the child’s
apprehension. The social welfare and development officer shall
explain to the child and the child’s parents/guardians the
consequences of child’s act with a view towards counseling and
rehabilitation, diversion from the criminal justice system, and
reparation, if appropriate;
(j) Take the child immediately to the proper medical and health
officer for a thorough physical and mental examination. The
examination results shall be kept confidential unless otherwise
ordered by the Family Court. Whenever the medical treatment is
required, steps shall be immediately undertaken to provide the
same;
(k) Ensure that should detention of the child in conflict with the
law be necessary, the child shall be secured in quarters
separate from that of the opposite sex and adult offenders;
(l) Record the following in the initial investigation:
(1) Whether handcuffs or other instruments of restraint
were used, and if so, the reason for such;
(2) That the parents or guardian of a child, the DSWD,
and the PAO have been duly informed of the apprehension
and the details thereof; and
(3) The exhaustion of measures to determine the age of a
child and the precise details of the physical and medical

examination or the failure to submit a child to such
examination; and
(m) Ensure that all statements signed by the child during
investigation shall be witnessed by the child’s parents or
guardian, social worker, or legal counsel in attendance who
shall affix his/her signature to the said statement. A child in
conflict with the law shall only be searched by a law
enforcement officer of the same gender and shall not be locked
up in a detention cell.
Duties During Initial Investigation –The law enforcement officer
shall, in his/her investigation, determine where the case involving the
child in conflict with the law should be referred. The taking of the
statement of the child shall be conducted in the presence of the
following:
(1) child’s counsel of choice or in the absence thereof, a lawyer
from the Public Attorney’s Office;

(2) the child’s parents, guardian, or nearest relative, as the case
may be; and
(3) the local social welfare and development officer.
In the absence of the child’s parents, guardian, or nearest
relative, and the local social welfare and development officer, the
investigation shall be conducted in the presence of a representative of
an NGO, religious group, or member of the BCPC.
After the initial investigation, the local social worker conducting
the same may do either of the following: (a) Proceed in accordance
with Section 20 if the child is fifteen (15) years or below or above
fifteen (15) but below eighteen (18) years old, who acted without
discernment; and (b) If the child is above fifteen (15) years old but
below eighteen (18) and who acted with discernment, proceed to
diversion under the following chapter.
System of Diversion. – Children in conflict with the law shall undergo
diversion programs without undergoing court proceedings subject to
the conditions herein provided:

(a) Where the imposable penalty for the crime committed is not
more than six (6) years imprisonment, the law enforcement
officer or Punong Barangay with the assistance of the local
social welfare development officer or other members of the LCPC
shall conduct mediation, family conferencing and conciliation
and, where appropriate, adopt indigenous modes of conflict
resolution in accordance with the best interest of the child with
a view to accomplishing the objectives of restorative justice and
the formulation of a diversion program. The child and his/her
family shall be present in these activities.
(b) In victimless crimes where the imposable penalty is not more
than six (6) years imprisonment, the local social welfare and
development officer shall meet with the child and his/her
parents or guardians for the development of the appropriate
diversion and rehabilitation program, in coordination with the
BCPC;
(c) Where the imposable penalty for the crime committed
exceeds six (6) years imprisonment, diversion measures may be
resorted to only by the court.
Stages Where Diversion May be Conducted. – Diversion may be
conducted at the Katarungang Pambarangay, the police investigation

or the inquest or preliminary investigation stage and at all levels and
phases of the proceedings including judicial level.
Conferencing, Mediation and Conciliation. - A child in conflict with law
may undergo conferencing, mediation or conciliation outside the
criminal justice system or prior to his entry into said system. A
contract of diversion may be entered into during such conferencing,
mediation or conciliation proceedings.
Contract of Diversion. – If during the conferencing, mediation or
conciliation, the child voluntarily admits the commission of the act, a
diversion program shall be developed when appropriate and desirable
as determined under Section 30. Such admission shall not be used
against the child in any subsequent judicial, quasi-judicial or
administrative proceedings. The diversion program shall be effective
and binding if accepted by the parties concerned. The acceptance
shall be in writing and signed by the parties concerned and the
appropriate authorities. The local social welfare and development
officer shall supervise the implementation of the diversion program.
The diversion proceedings shall be completed within forty-five (45)
days. The period of prescription of the offense shall be suspended
until the completion of the diversion proceedings but not to exceed
forty-five (45) days. The child shall present himself/herself to the
competent authorities that imposed the diversion program at least

once a month for reporting and evaluation of the effectiveness of the
program.
Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the contract
of diversion, as certified by the local social welfare development officer,
shall give the offended party the option to institute the appropriate
legal action. The period of prescription of the offense shall be
suspended during the effectivity of the diversion program, but not
exceeding a period of two (2) years.
Duty of the Punong Barangay When There is No Diversion. – If
the offense does not fall under Section 23(a) and (b), or if the child,
his/her parents or guardian does not consent to a diversion, the
Punong Barangay handling the case shall, within three (3) days from
determination of the absence of jurisdiction over the case or
termination of the diversion proceedings, as the case may be, forward
the records of the case of the child to the law enforcement officer,
prosecutor or the appropriate court, as the case may be. Upon the
issuance of the corresponding document, certifying to the fact that no
agreement has been reached by the parties, the case shall be filed
according to the regular process.
Duty of the Law Enforcement Officer When There is No Diversion.
– If the offense does not fall under Section 23(a) and (b), or if the child,
his/her parents or guardian does not consent to a diversion, the
Women and Children Protection Desk of the PNP, or other law
enforcement officer handling the case shall, within three (3) days from
determination of the absence of jurisdiction over the case or
termination of diversion proceedings, forward the records of the case
of the child under custody, to the prosecutor or judge concerned for
the conduct of inquest and/or preliminary investigation to determine
whether or not the child should remain under custody and
correspondingly charged in court.
The document transmitting said records shall display the word
“CHILD” in bold letters.
Factors in Determining Diversion Program. – In determining whether
diversion is appropriate and desirable, the following factors shall be
taken into consideration:
(a) The nature and circumstances of the offense charged;
(b) The frequency and the severity of the act;
(c) The circumstances of the child (e.g. age, maturity,
intelligence, etc.);
(d) The influence of the family and environment on the growth of
the child;
(e) The reparation of injury to the victim;
(f) The weight of the evidence against the child;
(g) The safety of the community; and
(h) The best interest of the child.
Formulation of the Diversion Program. – In formulating a diversion
program, the individual characteristics and the peculiar
circumstances of the child in conflict with the law shall be used to
formulate an individualized treatment. The following factors shall be
considered in formulating a diversion program for the child:
(a) The child’s feelings of remorse for the offense he/she
committed;
(b) The parents’ or legal guardians’ ability to guide and
supervise the child;

(c) The victim’s view about the propriety of the measures to be
imposed; and
(d) The availability of community-based programs for
rehabilitation and reintegration of the child.
Kinds of Diversion Program. – The diversion program shall include
adequate socio-cultural and psychological responses and services for
the child. At the different stages where diversion may be resorted to,
the following diversion programs may be agreed upon, such as, but
not limited to:
(a) At the level of the Punong Barangay:
(1) Restitution of property;
(2) Reparation of the damage caused;
(3) Indemnification for consequential damages;
(4) Written or oral apology;
(5) Care, guidance and supervision orders;

(6) Counseling for the child in conflict with the law and the
child’s family;
(7) Attendance in trainings, seminars and lectures on:
(i) anger management skills;
(ii) problem solving and/or conflict resolution skills;
(iii) values formation; and
(iv) other skills which will aid the child in dealing with situations
which can lead to repetition of the offense;
(8) Participation in available community-based programs,
including community service; or
(9) Participation in education, vocation and life skills programs.
(b) At the level of the law enforcement officer and the prosecutor:
(1) Diversion programs specified under paragraphs (a)(1) to (a)(9)
herein; and
(2) Confiscation and forfeiture of the proceeds or instruments of
the crime;
(c) At the level of the appropriate court:
(1) Diversion programs specified under paragraphs (a) and (b)
above;
(2) Written or oral reprimand or citation;
(3) Fine;
(4) Payment of the cost of the proceedings; or
(5) Institutional care and custody.
Duty of the Prosecutor’s Office. – There shall be a specially trained
prosecutor to conduct inquest, preliminary investigation and
prosecution of cases involving a child in conflict with the law. If there
is an allegation of torture or ill-treatment of a child in conflict with the

law during arrest or detention, it shall be the duty of the prosecutor to
investigate the same.
Preliminary Investigation and Filing of Information. – The prosecutor
shall conduct a preliminary investigation in the following instances:
(a) when the child in conflict with the law does not qualify for
diversion;
(b) when the child, his/her parents or guardian does not agree
to diversion as specified in Sections 27 and 28; and
(c) when considering the assessment and recommendation of
the social worker, the prosecutor determines that diversion is
not appropriate for the child in conflict with the law. Upon
serving the subpoena and the affidavit of complaint, the
prosecutor shall notify the Public Attorney’s Office of such
service, as well as the personal information, and place of
detention of the child in conflict with the law.

Upon determination of probable cause by the prosecutor, the
information against the child shall be filed before the Family Court
within forty-five (45) days from the start of the preliminary
investigation.
Chapter 4. Court Proceedings
SEC. 34. Bail. – For purposes of recommending the amount of bail,
the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority shall be considered.
SEC. 35. Release on Recognizance. – Where a child is detained, the
court shall order:
(a) the release of the minor on recognizance to his parents and
other suitable persons;
(b) the release of the child in conflict with the law on bail; or
(c) the transfer of the minor to a youth detention home/youth
rehabilitation center.
The court shall not order the detention of a child in a jail
pending trial or hearing of his/her case.
Detention of the Child Pending Trial. – Children detained pending
trial may be released on bail or recognizance as provided for under
Sections 34 and 35 under this Act. In all other cases and whenever
possible, detention pending trial may be replaced by alternative
measures, such as close supervision, intensive care or placement with
a family or in an educational setting or home. Institutionalization or
detention of the child pending trial shall be used only as a measure of
last resort and for the shortest possible period of time.
Whenever detention is necessary, a child will always be detained
in youth detention homes established by local governments, pursuant
to Section 8 of the Family Courts Act, in the city or municipality where
the child resides.
In the absence of a youth detention home, the child in conflict
with the law may be committed to the care of the DSWD or a local
rehabilitation center recognized by the government in the province,
city or municipality within the jurisdiction of the court. The center or
agency concerned shall be responsible for the child’s appearance in
court whenever required.

Diversion Measures. – Where the maximum penalty imposed by
law for the offense with which the child in conflict with the law is
charged is imprisonment of not more than twelve (12) years,
regardless of the fine or fine alone regardless of the amount, and
before arraignment of the child in conflict with the law, the court shall
determine whether or not diversion is appropriate.
Automatic Suspension of Sentence. – Once the child who is
under eighteen (18) years of age at the time of the commission of the
offense is found guilty of the offense charged, the court shall
determine and ascertain any civil liability which may have resulted
from the offense committed.
However, instead of pronouncing the judgment of conviction,
the court shall place the child in conflict with the law under
suspended sentence, without need of application: Provided, however,
That suspension of sentence shall still be applied even if the juvenile
is already eighteen years (18) of age or more at the time of the
pronouncement of his/her guilt. Upon suspension of sentence and
after considering the various circumstances of the child, the court
shall impose the appropriate disposition measures as provided in the
Supreme Court Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law.

Discharge of the Child in Conflict with the Law. – Upon the
recommendation of the social worker who has custody of the child, the
court shall dismiss the case against the child whose sentence has
been suspended and against whom disposition measures have been
issued, and shall order the final discharge of the child if it finds that
the objective of the disposition measures have been fulfilled.
The discharge of the child in conflict with the law shall not
affect the civil liability resulting from the commission of the offense,
which shall be enforced in accordance with law.
Return of the Child in Conflict with the Law to Court. – If the
court finds that the objective of the disposition measures imposed
upon the child in conflict with the law have not been fulfilled, or if the
child in conflict with the law has willfully failed to comply with the
conditions of his/her disposition or rehabilitation program, the child
in conflict with the law shall be brought before the court for execution
of judgment.
If said child in conflict with the law has reached eighteen (18)
years of age while under suspended sentence, the court shall
determine whether to discharge the child in accordance with this Act,
to order execution of sentence, or to extend the suspended sentence

for a certain specified period or until the child reaches the maximum
age of twenty-one (21) years.

Foundations of Criminology

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Foundations of Criminology

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Foundations of Criminology

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Antonio Villegas St.

, Mehan Gardens, Manila

PROBATION AND PAROLE IN

Submitted to: Dr. Gilbert San Diego MNSA

Faculty of the Graduate School

In partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the course of Economics

Jessica Viena C Sari

Mikaila Ma. A Santiago

Beverly Joy C Nanglegan

1.) Human trafficking………………………………………………....6

2.) Related Laws concerned in Human Trafficking………………7

3.) Government Agencies concerned Human Trafficking………9

4.) Problems and History……………………………………………11

5.) Difference between Human Trafficking and Smuggling……13

6.) Role of Police in Trafficking in Persons……………………….14

7.) Gun Smuggling…………………………………………………...17

8.) Weapons of Mass Destruction………………………………….21

9.) Phil. Gov’t effort Against in Armed Group…………………….23

Crime is defined as an act committed or omitted violation of a

public law forbidding or commanding it. It is also ascribed to as an

crime as a matter of personal offense and retribution. That most

offenses in primitive cultures were dealt with as private wrongs

does not signify that crime was privately defined. Generally,

however, community action was taken against the offender only in

those instances when he violated a religious taboo.

presumption of innocence as provided for by our 1987 Constitution,

all reported cases are with sound basis of true happening.

Through out man’s history from the ancient pre-literate culture

wherein a wrongful act of one considered as a crime today is viewed as

a personal offense and dealt with by vengeance. In the middle ages

wherein the world is influenced by Christian faith, crimes is viewed

more as bad, immoral hence similar in degree with sins which is

attributed to the devil, hence society responded to it with the

philosophy and approach which is to treat criminals and the

punishment is more of cleansing or redemption.

The advent of the school of thought in criminology ushered in

enlightenment and society chose to treat crimes in a way to reform

and rehabilitate the criminal offender by incarceration as a primary

As modern criminology progress, today crime is dealt with by

the concept of restorative justice, wherein ways and means are

resorted to heal the broken social relationship and amicably settle

disputes between the offender and his/her victim.

What are the Schools of Thought in Criminology?

Classical School of Thought by BECARRIA. Accordingly to

criminologist Becarria, men are fundamentally a biological organism

with intelligence and rationality which control their behavior. Before

man tries to do something, he tries to resolve the amount of pain they

actions will depend on the balance of the two considerations if there

commit the unlawful act. It concludes that, crime is caused by the

rational effort of men to augment their pleasure and to minimize their

Some of the noteworthy features of the classical school in criminology

o All people are steered by free will

o All behavior is guided by hedonism (pleasure/pain calculation)

o All crime is the result of free will and hedonism

o All punishment should correspond to the offense (equal

treatment under law)

Another major personage from the classical school is JEREMY

BENTHAM an Englishman (1748-1832). Bentham's book, An

Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation made the

o Society is based on social contract which convene for the