| | | CRIMINAL LAW BOOK ONE What are the characteristics of criminal law? Expl: Criminal law is general, territorial, and prospective. Itis general, hence penal laws and those of public security and safety are obligatory upon all who live and sojourn in the Philippine territory (Art. 14, NCC). It is tertitorial, meaning, penal laws of the Philippines have Philippine territory except as provided under Art, 2 of the RPC. e force and effect only within the It is prospective, thus, ‘a penal law cannot make an act punishable in a manner in which it was not Punishable when committed. Art. 366, RPC says that crimes are punished under the laws in force at the time of their commission. Exceptions Are ail The main yardst iU64 to immunity is the determination natufep Only “ciplomatc agents," under the terms ara vested with blanket diplomatic immunity from ei s ai biplothalic’agents’ as the heads of General Rule: Pen Exceptions: Trea prosecution for tho the said crime becat territorial jurisdiction o No. Under the principle tet territory, However, Article 2 of he R Sion of any of the crimes against national security’ and the law of natioris-ghal fable-even if committed outside the Philippine jureciction. Treason isa erme against national seuriy andthe law of nation. Hence, he isthe for treason even if it was committed outside the Philippina torrtory. AAA and BBB were married in the Philippines. When AAA went abroad to work, he met his ex- girlfriend, CCC. They renewed their friendship and rokindled their affections for each other and eventually got married in California. When 8B found out about the second marriage, she filed a case of Bigamy against AAA and CCC in the Philippines. Will the case prosper? No, the case will not prosper. Under the principle of territoriality, Philippine penal laws, are enforceable only within its territory unless the act is one that falls under exceptions provided in Article 2, RPC. Bigamy is not among those mentioned in Article 2. Hence, the Philippine Courts have no jurisdiction over the bigamous marriage contracted by AAA in California, San Bea Cousce or Law 2017 CewraauizeD BaR OPERATIONSCRIMINAL LA’ aes 7. What are the rules on crimes committed on ships or airships? The following rules shall be considered a. In crimes committed on Philippine ships of airships, the RPC appl airship is found in Philippine waters or in the high seas as long as th under the Philippine laws: b. In crimes committed on private or merchant vessels found in Pailippine territorial waters, the English Rule shall be applied which provides that crimes perpetrated under such circumstances are in general triable in the courts of the country within territory they were committed; and cc. In crimes committed on foreign warships, the nationality of the warship or airship determines the applicable penal laws to the crimes committed therein as such ships or airships are considered 0 be an extension of the territory of the country to which they belong (REYES, Book One, at 25-31), es whether the said ship or hip or airship is registered Prospectivity 8 General Rule: An act cannot be penalized if it was net punishable at the time of its commission ‘2. Whenethe pew law expres sito 1; : B. Wher tig pend is a h aes Dr é J MALICIN'SEV. MALA-PROHIBITA, ees Discuss the differences betweenlerimés flala in 86 and mala prohibita, Criminal law has long divided crimes into acts wrong in themselves called Ais mala in se; and acts ihe Yael lial posliGalave torbids thom, called acta mala prohibit '3 wiongfulact is cone, ‘The rule on Io print, tne only inquiry is the offender is immaterial, When the 2 public welfare, and the doing of the 10. Are all mala in"; special penal lay No. A common prohibita crimes ar ‘o distinguish between mala in se and mala pr immorality or vileness of the penalized act. If thepu ct or om p itself thio itis @ crime mala in se; on the contrary, if it is not rime prohibififg-its commission by reasons of public policy, then its‘ sis, fet,or not a crime involves moral trptude titel uy the wolation of the state (Ogg Sel) wih the dete carpiinad Aa Shofar Faced ate h a5 sian ¥hey' ora cenernee tara cpt law. Kecerdt gE tant must be clearly established with the othet poets lecend erage pepe epi he deere Senbas, tra cicka sce ura iat hferentty unipeswebat Decorne: puntshable’ only Escauga te law Ses en na oa ea, 14. Are there felonies under the RPC which are mala prohibita? Are there crimes punished under special penal laws which are considered mala in se? Yes. Under the RPC, the crime of technical malversation is malum prohibitum. Criminal intent is not ‘an element of technical malversation. The law punishes the act of diverting public property earmarked by law or ordinance for a particular public purpose to another public purpose. It is malum prohibitum (Ysidoro v. People, 2012) Yes. Plunder, defined and punished under RA 7080, as amended, is a crime malum in se. Plunder is @ malum in se, requiring proof of criminal intent. Precisely because the constitutive orimes are mala in se the element of mens rea must be proven in a prosecution for plunder. The legislative declaration in RA 7659 that plunder is a heinous offense implies that it is @ malum in se. For when the acts punished Sax Broa Cource oF LAW 2017 Cenrrauizep Bar Orerarionsot matter that such acts Violation of Section 27(b) of RA 6546 involving tampering, increasing or decreasing the number of votes is malum in se. Tampering, increasing or decreasing the number of votes received by a candidate in any election of refusal, after proper verification and hearing, lo credit the correct votes or deduct such tampered votes is inherently immoral. For otherwise, even srrors and mistakes cornmitted due to overwork and fatigue would be punishable. Given the volume of votes to be counted and canvassed within a limited amount of time, errors and miscalculations are bound to happen. And it could not be the intent of the law to punish unintentional election canvass errors (Garcia v. Court of Appeais, supra). 12. What is the nature of hazing defined under RA 80497 Itis 2 crime mala prohibita. ba Sniflickbetween the proposed law (RA 8049) i c ongress did not simply enact an inded upon,the principle of mala and thesgore principle of m amendm fag insteagyit ce pronibitaTni f hazing itsel t inherently immoral. but the law deems theiSame to be against public policy. rust be prohibit Aeebngl 04 exetence of criminals immaterial in the crime of hazingiAlso, the defense"of goud faith carinot be raised in its prosecution (Dungo v. Peo; supra). ~y COLLEGE OF \ 43. May felonies 9) 984, en BA 7942, suffice itto say that a mala in SBveI im Iling ir/'Deriage to Property) cannot absorb mala provib 2, snd RA 7942), What makes the at makes’the latter crimes are the 14, Differentiate Motive is the 15. When is motive relevant It is important where thé-ident acoysé | dispute or where the identifiat s6USfrom an unreliable source and testimony is inconclusive and noffres SS A 16. Differentiate general from specific intent. General Intent is presumed in the commission of a felony. Specific Intent must be proven as an element of a felony. 17. What circumstances may be considered to determine the presence or absence of tent to kill? Motive; Nature or number of weapons used in the commission of the crime; Nature and number of wounds inflicted on the victim: Manner the crime was committed; and Words uttered by the offender at the time the injuries are inflicted by him on the victim (People v. Mapalo, 2007), a b. ©. 4. Six Broa Couroror Law 4 2017 Centrauizep Bar Operations