Professional Documents
Culture Documents
iii
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface
................................................................................
iii
Introduction ............................................................................
Definitions ......................................................................
Rules of Construction ....................................................
1
8
13
13
14
15
16
18
18
20
21
23
26
26
28
29
30
34
35
35
36
38
38
43
43
58
58
96
106
107
121
121
117
136
136
148
157
165
193
198
203
208
222
225
240
249
252
258
263
277
298
306
312
318
327
359
364
377
379
389
393
399
500
507
512
525
533
566
567
576
586
404
469
472
APPENDICES
Appendix A R.A. 9372 Human Security Act .................
Appendix B R.A. No. 8485 Animal Welfare
Act of 1998 .....................................................................
597
628
651
vii
625
INTRODUCTION
DEFINITIONS
Special Penal Laws are laws that define and penalize crimes
not included in the Revised Penal Code; these crimes are of a nature
different from those defined and punished in the Code. For instance,
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 amending the Dangerous Drugs Act,
R.A. No. 6425, is not covered under any provisions of the Code. It is a
purely special law, hence, the Code has no suppletory application.
On the other hand, laws which merely amend the provisions of the
Revised Penal Code, such as Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 533, the
Anti-Cattle Rustling Law which amended Articles 308, 309, and 310
are not considered special penal laws. Thus, cattle rustling is still
malum in se. (Taer vs. CA, G.R. No. 85204, June 18, 1990)
Crimes mala prohibita are acts or omissions which are made
evil because there is a law prohibiting the same. They are generally
punished by special laws. These would not be wrong but for the fact
that positive law forbids them. In this case, the only question asked
is, has the law been violated? When the act is illegal, intent of the
offender is immaterial. (Dunlao vs. CA, G.R. No. 111343, August 22,
1996) In contrast, crimes mala in se are acts or omissions which
are inherently evil. Generally, crimes mala in se are punished under
the Revised Penal Code.
Crimes mala in se and mala prohibita are distinguished in the
following manner:
In crimes mala in se:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
In mala prohibita:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
INTRODUCTION
such acts as are not of themselves immoral but whose illegality lies
in its positively being prohibited.
A mala in se felony (such as reckless imprudence resulting in
damage to property) cannot absorb mala prohibita crimes (such as
those violating P.D. No. 1067, P.D. No. 984, and R.A. No. 7942). What
makes the former a felony is criminal intent (dolo) or negligence
(culpa); what makes the latter crimes are the special laws enacting
them. (Loney vs. People, G.R. No. 152644, February 10, 2006)
Heinous crimes are grievous, odious and hateful offenses
which by reason of their inherent or manifest wickedness, viciousness, atrocity and perversity, are regarded as seriously outrageous
to the common standards or norms of decency and morality in a just,
civilized and orderly society. [Whereas clause, R.A. No. 7659]
Penalties are the punishment imposed by lawful authority
upon a person who commits a deliberate or negligent act. (Moreno,
Philippine Law Dictionary, Third ed., citing from People vs. Moran,
44 Phil. 431) Penalties are prescribed by statutes and are essentially
and exclusively legislative. Judges can only interpret and apply the
laws and have no authority to modify them or revise their range as
determined exclusively by the legislature. (People vs. dela Cruz, G.R.
No. 100386, December 11, 1992)
Only those penalties which have been prescribed by law prior
to its commission may be imposed upon an offender. (Article 21, Revised Penal Code) Unless there is a law penalizing an act or omission, that act or omission cannot be penalized, no matter how reprehensible it may be. Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege. There is no
crime when there is no law that defines and penalizes it.
For instance, in Padilla vs. CA, G.R. No. 121917, March 12, 1997,
petitioner faults respondent court in applying P.D. No. 1866 in a
democratic ambience (sic) and a non-subversive context and adds
that respondent court should have applied instead the previous laws
on illegal possession of firearms since the reason for the penalty imposed under P.D. No. 1866 no longer exists. He stresses that the penalty of 17 years and 4 months to 21 years for simple illegal possession of firearm is cruel and excessive in contravention of the Constitution.
The contentions do not merit serious consideration. The trial
court and the respondent court are bound to apply the governing
law at the time of the commission of the offense for it is a rule that
only subsequent ones repeal laws. Indeed, it is the duty of judicial