SUBJECT: SALIENT PROVISIONS OF RELEVANT SPECIAL LAWS AND

THEIR ENFORCEMENT RE: ANTI-DRUNK AND DRUGGED

DRIVING LAW (RA 10586) AND ANTI-
CARNAPPING
INVESTIGATION AND DETECTION TECHNIQUES
INSTRUCTOR: PSMS CHRISTOPHER A JAWAY
DATE: 19 SEPTEMBER 2023

INDIVIDUAL SUMMARY REPORT

Before discussing the salient provisions of relevant special laws and their
enforcement re: Republic Act No. 10586, otherwise known as the Anti-Drunk and Drugged
Driving Act of 2013 and Republic Act No. 10883, also known as the New AntiCarnapping
Act of 2016, our instructor, PSMS Jaway, discussed the definition of special laws. Special
laws are those laws enacted by the Congress. This is colloquially known as the Republic
Acts. Special penal laws are those laws enacted by the Congress which are penal in
nature. PSMS Jaway correctly discussed to us that as a general rule, criminal intent is not
necessary to prove the guilt of an accused if the accused violated a special penal law. It
is enough that the accused consummated the criminal act defined in such special penal
law. Unlike if an accused committed a felony, or crimes punishable under the Revised
Penal Code, criminal intent is an element of crime. Since mere consummation of the crime
is enough for an accused to be liable under a special penal law, it follows that the defense
of good faith cannot be invoked. Defense of good faith can be used for crimes under
Revised Penal Code because it negates the criminal intent on the part of the accused.

I would like to disagree with our esteemed instructor when he said that the defense
of lack of knowledge of such special penal law may prosper in the commission of a crime
under special penal laws. Article 3 of the New Civil Code provides that ignorance of the
law excuses no one from compliance therewith. This means that lack of knowledge as a
defense will not stand in any competent court. Our instructor says that lack of knowledge
may be used as a defense, citing the famous case of Tañada v. Tuvera, where the
Supreme Court states that the publication of the law is an indispensable requirement
before a law takes effect. In my opinion, the ruling of Tañada v. Tuvera may only apply if
there is no publication of a law with respect to the requirements of publication and still
such law took effect. If a law is published and enacted thereafter, then the ruling of the
said case should apply. I believe that PSMS Jaway would like to explain to us that we can
assail such special penal law that is allegedly violated with regards to its publication.
Nevertheless, ignorance of the law excuses no one.
 PSMS Jaway briefly discussed the meaning and difference between mala in se
and mala prohibita. He then proceeded to discuss Republic Act No. 10586, otherwise
known as the Anti-Drunk and Drugged Driving Act of 2013.

Republic Act No. 10586 is enacted to ensure road safety through the observance
of the citizenry of responsible and ethical driving standards. PSMS Jaway explained
extensively the definition of terms provided under Section 2 thereof. He also educated us
the punishable acts defined under Section 5 thereof. The conduct of field sobriety,
chemical and confirmatory tests, the implementation of mandatory alcohol and chemical
testing of drivers involved in motor vehicular accidents, and the refusal to subject oneself
in mandatory tests is properly discussed. Techniques in investigating, and the conduct of
field sobriety test are also properly discussed.
Republic Act No. 10883, otherwise known as the New Anti-Carnapping Act of 2016,
was discussed by our instructor thereafter. PSMS Jaway discussed the salient provisions
of the said law thereafter.

NAME: TROI BULALACAO, GIELDAN G.

CLASS: CIC CL 976-2023