Fundamental Principles – Conspiracy (Article 8)

Facts:

Sharica Mari Go-Tan filed a Petition with prayer for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)
against her husband and her parents-in-law, herein respondents alleging that her husband, in conspiracy
of his parents, were causing verbal, psychological and economic abuses upon her in violation of Section
5, paragraphs e (2,3, and 4), h (5), and I of Republic Act No. 9262, otherwise known as the Anti-Violence
Against Women and their Children Act of 2004.

Respondents, on the other hand,

Issue:

WON the principle of conspiracy in the Revised Penal Code (RPC) may be applied to R.A. No. 9262
making parents-in-law violators of the latter.

Ruling:

Fundamental Principles – Mala in Se vs Mala Prohibita

People vs Mariacos

Facts:

Accused-appellant Belen Mariacos was charged of violating Section 5, Article !! of R.A. No. 9165 for
allegedly trasporting and delivering 7,030.3 grams of dried marijuana fruiting tops without the necessary
permit or authority from the proper government agency or office.

In her defense, appellant averred that the packages she was carrying did not belong to her but to a
neighbor who had asked her and her companion to carry the same for him. However, the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) ruled out for her conviction.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the decision of the RTC contending that the appellant was
caught in flagrante delicto of carrying and conveying the bag containing the illegal drugs.

Issue:

WON ownership, lack of personal knowledge, intent and good faith are material in violation of R.A. No.
9165, a malum prohibitum.

Ruling:

When an accused is charged with illegal possession or transportation of prohibited drugs, the ownership
thereof is immaterial. Consequently, proof of ownership of the confiscated marijuana is not necessary.

Appellants alleged lack of knowledge does not constitute a valid defense. Lack of criminal intent and
good faith are not exempting circumstances where the crime charged is malum prohibitum, as in this
case. Mere possession and/or delivery of a prohibited drug, without legal authority, is punishable under
the Dangerous Drugs Act.
*** Anti-narcotic laws, like anti-gambling laws, are regulatory statutes. They are rules of convenience
designed to secure a more orderly regulation of the affairs of society, and their violation gives rise to
crimes mala prohibita. Laws defining crimes mala prohibita condemn behavior directed not against
particular individuals but against public order.

Fundamental Principles – Territoriality

Nicolas vs Romulo (G.R. No. 175888, February 11, 2009)

Facts:

Daniel Smith, a member of US Armed Forces, was convicted with the crime of rape under the Philippine
penal laws. He was sentenced with reclusion perpetua and was ordered to be detained temporarily in
Makati jail until further orders.

However, on December 29, 2006, Smith was taken out of the Makati jail by a contingent of Philippine
enforcement agents, purportedly acting under orders of the DILG, and brought to a facility for detention
under the control of the US government, provided for under the new agreements between the
Philippines and the United States referred to as the Romulo-Kenney Agreement of December 19 and 22,
2006.

Issue:

WON a member of a visiting armed forces is exempt from the criminal jurisdiction of the Philippines.

Ruling:

The rule on international law is that a foreign armed forces allowed to enter one’s territory is immune
from local legislation, except to the extent agreed upon.

Applying the provisions of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), the Court finds that there is different
treatment when it comes to detention as against custody. The moment the accused has to be detained
after conviction, the rule that governs is Article V, Section 10 of the said Agreement which provides:

“Section 10. The confinement or detention by the Philippine authorities of United States
personnel shall be carried out in facilities agreed on by appropriate Philippines and United States
authorities. United States personnel serving sentence in the Philippines shall have the right to visits and
material assistance.

It is clear, that the parties to the VFA recognized the difference between custody during trial and
detention after conviction, because they provided for a specific arrangement to cover detention. And
this specific arrangement clearly states not only that the detention shall be carried out in facilities
agreed on by authorities of both parties, but also that the detention shall be ‘by Philippine authorities.’
Therefore, the Romulo-Kenney Agreements, which are agreements on the detention of the accused in
the US Embassy, are not in accord with the VFA itself because such detention is not ‘by Philippine
authorities.’
Fundamental Principle – Prospectivity/Retroactivity

SUSAN GO and PEOPLE vs FERNANDO DIMAGIBA (G.R. No. 151876, June 21, 2005)

Facts:

Fernando Dimagiba was convicted of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 by the MTCC in Baguio City. On appeal, the
RTC modified the lower decision invoking SC-AC No. 12-2000 which allegedly required the imposition of
a fine only instead of imprisonment for B.P. 22 violations, if the accused was not a recidivist or a habitual
delinquent. The RTC held that this rule should be retroactively applied in favor of Dimagiba.

Issue:

WON the principle of retroactivity applies to special laws and circulars.

Ruling:

The rule on retroactivity states that criminal laws may be applied retroactively if favorable to the
accused. This principle, embodied in the RPC, has been expanded in certain instances to cover special
laws.

Bill of Attainder

ARNEL MISOLAS vs HON. BENJAMIN PANGA (G.R. No. 83341, January 30, 1990)

Facts:

Arnel Misolas was caught during a raid in an underground house in Foster Village, Pili, Camarines Sur in
possession of firearm without authority. He was then charged with illegal possession of firearm under
P.D. No. 1866.

In his defense, he contends that P.D. 1866 is considered a bill of attainder, hence; violative of the
Constitution.

Issue:

WON P.D. 1866 is a bill of attainder.

Ruling:

The Court defined the bill of attainder as a legislative act which inflicts punishment on individuals or
member of a group of individuals without judicial trial. Essential to a bill of attainder are a specification
of certain individuals or a group of individuals, the imposition of penalty or otherwise, and the lack of
judicial trial. The last element is most essential. P.D. 1866 does not possess the elements of a bill of
attainder.