DIFFERENT PHILOSOPHIES UNDERLYINGTHE CRIMINAL LAWSYSTEM

Classical or Juristic Philosophy

Bestrememberedbythemaxim

“An

 eye for an eye, a

tooth for a tooth.”

 [Note:Ifyouwanttoimpress theexaminer, use the Latin version- Oculopro oculo, dentepro dente.]The

purpose of penalty is retribution. Theoffender is madetosufferforthewronghehasdone.Thereisscantregardforthe
humanelementofthecrime.Thelawdoesnotlookintowhytheoffendercommitted thecrime. Capitalpunishmentis aproductof
this kind ofschool of thought. Man is regarded as a moral creature whounderstands right from
wrong. So that when he commits a wrong, hemustbepreparedtoacceptthepunishmenttherefore.

Positivist or Realistic Philosophy

Thepurposeofpenaltyisreformation.Thereisgreatrespectforthehumanelement because the offender is

regarded as socially sick who needstreatment, not punishment. Cages are like asylums, jails
likehospitals.They are to segregate the

offenders from the “good”

 Members ofsociety. Fromthis philosophycamethejurysystem, wherethe penalty is imposed on a case to

case basis after examination ofthe offender by a panel of social scientists which do not
includelawyers as the panel would not want the law to influence theirconsideration. Crimes
are regarded as social phenomena whichconstrain person to do wrong although not of his
own volition. ATendency

towards crime is the product of one’s

 Environment. There is no such thing as a natural born killer. Thisphilosophy is criticized as

being too lenient.

Eclectic or Mixed Philosophy

This combines both positivist and classical thinking. Crimes that areeconomicandsocialbynatureshouldbedealtwith
inapositivistmanner;thus, the law is more compassionate. Heinous crimes should bedealt with in a
classical manner; thus, capital punishment. Since theRevised Penal Code was adopted
from the Spanish Codigo Penal,which in turn was copied from the French Code of 1810
which isclassical in character, it is said that our Code is also classical. This isno longer true
because with the American occupation of thePhilippines,manyprovisionsofcommonlawhavebeenengraftedinto
ourpenal laws. The Revised Penal Code today follows the mixed or eclecticphilosophy.Forexample,intoxication
oftheoffenderisconsideredtomitigate his criminal liability, unless it is intentional or habitual;
theage of the offender is considered; and the woman who killed herchild to conceal her
dishonor has in her favor a mitigatingcircumstance.

MALA IN SE AND MALA PROHIBITA

 ViolationsoftheRevisedPenalCodearereferredtoasaluminse,whichliterally means, that the act is inherently

evil or bad or per sewrongful. On the other hand, violations of special laws are
generallyreferred to as alum prohibitum. Note, however, that not all violations ofspecial laws
aremala prohibita. While intentional felonies are alwaysmalainse,itdoesnot followthatprohibited acts
doneinviolation of speciallaws are always mala prohibita. Even if the crime is punished under
aspecial law, if the act punished is one which is inherently wrong, thesame is alum inse,and,
therefore, goodfaithand thelackofcriminal intent isa valid defense; unless it is the product of criminal
negligence orculpa. Likewise when the special laws require that the punished actbe
committed knowingly and willfully, criminal intent is required tobe proved before criminal
liability may arise. For example,Presidential Decree No. 532 punishes piracy in Philippine
waters andthe special law punishing brigandage in the highways. These acts areinherently
wrong and although they are punished under speciallaws,The act themselves are mala in se;
thus good faith or lack of criminalintent is a defense. Distinction between crimes punished
under theRevised Penal Code and crimes punished under special laws1.As to moral trait of
the offender In crimes punished under theRevised Penal Code, the moral trait of the
offender is considered.This is why liability would only arise when there is dolo or culpa
inthe commission of the punishable act. In crimes punished underspecial laws, the moral
trait of the offender is not considered; it isenough that the prohibited act was voluntarily
done.2.As to use ofgood faith asdefenseIn crimes punished under the RevisedPenal Code, good faith or
lack of criminal intent is a valid defense;unless the crime is the result of culpa. In crimes
punished underspecial laws, good faith is not a defense.3.AstodegreeofaccomplishmentofthecrimeIn
crimespunishedundertheRevised Penal Code, thedegreeofaccomplishmentofthecrimeis takenintoaccount in
punishing the offender; thus, there are attempted,frustrated and consummated stages in
the commission of the crime.In crimes punished under special laws, the act gives rise to a
crimeonly when it is consummated; there are no attempted or frustratedstages, unless the
special law expressly penalizes a mere attempt orfrustration of the crime.4.As to
mitigating and aggravating circumstances In crimes punishedunder the Revised Penal Code,
mitigating and aggravatingcircumstances are taken into account since the moral trait of
theoffender Is considered. In crimes punished under special laws,mitigating and aggravating
circumstances are not taken into accountin imposing the penalty.5.As to degree of
participation In crimes punished under the RevisedPenal Code,whenthereismorethan oneoffender,the
degreeof participation of each in the commission of the crime is taken intoaccount in
imposing the penalty; thus, offenders are classified asprincipal, accomplice and
accessory .In crimes punished underspecial laws, the degree of participation of the
offenders is notconsidered. All who perpetrated the prohibited act are penalized tothe
same extent. There is no principal or accessory to consider..

Q and A--

. Three hijackers accosted the pilot of an airplane. Theycompelled thepilottochange destination,but

beforethesamecould beaccomplished,themilitarywasalerted.Whatwasthecrimecommitted?Gravecoercion. There is
no such thing as attempted hijacking. Underspecial laws, the penalty is not impose dun less
the act isconsummated. Crimes committed against the provisions of a speciallaw are
penalized only when the pernicious effects, which such lawseeks top revent,arise.2. A
mayor awarded a concession to his daughter. She was alsothe highest bidder. The award
was even

Indorsed by the municipal council as the most advantageous to themunicipality. The losing
bidder challenged the validity of thecontract, but the trial court sustained its validity.
The case goes tothe Sandigan bayan and the mayor gets convicted for violation ofRepublic
Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).Heappeals alleging his defenses
raised in the Sandiganbayan that he3

rd