LOUISA A.

MATUBIS Criminal Law Review 2nd Assignment: July 8, 2013

1. Distinguish, in their respective concepts and legal implication, between CRIMES IN MALA IN SE and CRIMES MALA PROHIBITA CRIMES MALA IN SE The moral trait of the offender is considered, this is the reason why in the commission of the punishable act liability only arise when there is DOLO or CULPA As to the use of GOOD Good faith or lack of intent is FAITH as defense a valid defense unless the crime is the result of CULPA As to the degree of The degree of accomplishment of accomplishment of the crime the crime is taken into account in punishing the offender As to the moral trait of the offender CRIMES MALA PROHIBITA The moral trait of the offender is not considered, it is enough that the prohibited act was voluntarily done.

Good faith is not a valid defense

As to mitigating and aggravating circumstances As to the degree of participation

The act gives rise to a crime only when it is consummated, in this case there is no attempted or frustrated unless the special law expressly penalize the mere attempt or frustration of the crime Both are taken into account Mitigating and in imposing the penalty since aggravating are not taken the moral trait of the into account in imposing offender is considered. the penalty When there is more than one It is not considered. All offender, the degree of are penalized to the same participation of each in the extent. commission of the crime is taken into account in imposing the penalty, thus

offender are classified as principal, accomplice and accessory.

MALA IN SE v. MALA PROHIBITA IN CONCEPT : Crimes MALA IN SE are those where the acts or omissions penalized are inherently bad, evil or wrong that they are almost universally condemned. Crimes MALA PROHIBITA are those where the acts penalized are not inherently bad, evil, or wrong but prohibited by law for public good, public welfare or interest and whoever violates the prohibition are penalized. IN LEGAL IMPLICATION: Crimes MALA IN SE, good faith or lack of criminal intent or negligence is a defense, while in MALA PROHIBITA, good faith or lack of criminal intent or malice is not a defense, it is enough that the prohibition was voluntarily violated Criminal liability is generally incurred in crimes MALA IN SE even when the crime is only attempted or frustrated, while in MALA PROHIBITA criminal liability is only incurred when the crime is consummated.

2. CAN AN ACT MALUM IN SE ABSORBS AN ACT MALUM PROHIBITUM

YES, an act may be Malum in se and malum prohibitum at the same time. In PEOPLE V. SUNICO the court held that the omission or failure of election inspectors and poll clerks to include a voter's name in the registry list of voters is

wrong per se because it disenfranchises a voter of his right to vote. In this regard it is considered as MALUM IN SE, since it violates provision in election code it is also considered MALUM PROHIBITUM. Whether the act is wrong by itself, no need to distinguish as punishable by RPC or Special Law