Criminal Law

The Revised Penal Code Book I, as that branch or division of law which defines crimes,
treats of their nature, and provides for the their punishment, while he defined crime
as an act committed or omitted in violation of public law forbidding or commanding
it.

The Main Sources of our Criminal Laws now are the Revised Penal Code Republic Act
No. 3815, Special Penal Laws, and the city and municipal ordinances providing for
penal sanctions.

Felonies are crimes in violation of the Revised Penal Code while offenses are crimes
in violation of the Special Penal Laws and infractions for violation of ordinances.

1. PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS

a. What are Special Penal Laws

- Apart from the crimes penalized in the Revised Penal Code, several other
pieces of criminal legislation have been passed, penalizing acts such as illegal
possession and trafficking of dangerous drugs, money laundering, and illegal
possession of firearms.
- they form part of Philippine Criminal Laws

b. Special Penal Laws vs. crimes under the RPC

- Art. 10. Offenses not subject to the provisions of this Code. — Offenses which
are or in the future may be punishable under special laws are not subject to
the provisions of this Code. This Code shall be supplementary to such laws,
unless the latter should specially provide the contrary.
- There are certain differences between crimes punished under the Revised
Penal Code and Special Penal Laws.

• Violations of the crimes listed in the Revised Penal Code are referred to
as mala in se, which literally means, that the act is inherently evil or
bad or wrongful in itself.
• On the other hand, violations of Special Penal Laws are generally
referred to as malum prohibitum or an act that is wrong because it is
prohibited. Thus, no criminal intent is needed in order to find a person
liable for crimes punished under Special Penal Laws. As long as the act
is committed, then it is punishable as a crime under law.

- Note, however, that not all violations of Special Penal Laws are mala prohibita.
While intentional felonies are always mala in se, it does not follow that
prohibited acts done in violation of special laws are always mala prohibita.
- There are some important distinctions between crimes punishable under the
Revised Penal Code and Special Penal Laws. One of them is that in crimes
punished under the Revised Penal Code, the moral trait of the offender is
considered. This is why liability would only arise when there is criminal intent
or negligence in the commission of the punishable act.
 - In crimes punished under Special Penal Laws, the moral trait of the offender
is not considered; it is enough that the prohibited act was voluntarily done.

c. Crimes mala in se and mala prohibita

- Mala in se: (“evil in itself”) – A crime or an act that is inherently immoral,

such as murder, arson or rape. [Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Ed.]

Mala in se, or malum in se, in its singular form is a Latin phrase which literally
translates to wrong in, and of, itself. These are acts or omissions, in contrast with
mala prohibita, which do not need special criminal statutes to criminalize those acts
or omission simply by violating such special laws.

In mala in se, the acts or omissions itself are inherently wrongful and immoral. These
are acts which our society, our traditions, and our parents consider as naturally and
organically evil.

Thus, they are acts and omissions which are wrong because they violate the moral,
natural, or public principles of our society.

The perpetrated action itself is per se sinister or evil. The list of these evil crimes are
found and codified in our Revised Penal Code, with the corresponding punishment
like penalty of imprisonment and fines, capital, afflictive, correctional, light, or
otherwise.

Crimes like murder, rape, and kidnapping and others are intrinsically evil, regardless
of the regulations governing the conduct.

It is the very nature of the acts themselves which attacks and violates the very moral,
natural, or public principles of our society that make them punishable offenses.

It is the severity of the acts and omissions that the state wants to prevent, eliminate,
and eradicate, with the concomitant objective to rehabilitate the perpetrators by
penalizing them with corresponding imprisonment and/or fines, as the case may be.

- Mala Prohibita: (“prohibited evil”) – An act that is a crime merely because it

is prohibited by statute, although the act itself is not necessarily immoral.
[Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Ed.]

Mala prohibita, or malum prohibitum in its singular form, is a Latin phrase which
literally translates to, it is wrong as, or because, it is prohibited.

These are acts or omissions which are not inherently wrongful or immoral by
themselves; yet, because of certain statutes or laws prohibiting such acts or
omission, they have been considered as crimes or offenses. Hence, they become
punishable under such laws.
The act becomes a crime because a criminal statute made it so. Usually, mala
prohibita are crimes or offenses which do not harm people and property. They may
also include breaches of statutes or prohibitions involving minor crimes, such as but
not limited to infractions of ordinances.

Therefore, the only question in determining whether or not the same is malum
prohibitum is whether a statute or a special penal law is violated.

Why will, then, such statutes or prohibitions have been enacted to criminalize those
acts or omissions if they are not inherently wrongful or immoral?

It must be noted that the primary feature of crimes mala prohibita is not their lack
of gravity. Nonetheless, they are acts criminalized by statute in an effort to regulate
the general behaviors of society.

Perforce, the main objective of the state is to instill order in the society. Necessarily,
it is apt to regulate such acts or omissions which if remained unattended may
subsequently cause chaos to the communities in general. Then, a greater harm will
be unavoidable.

Such acts, like illegally possessing firearms, if remained unregulated or prohibited

will result into proliferation of unlicensed guns in the hands of our citizens. It will
eventually cause harm to our society, as the privilege of owning a gun will no longer
be conditioned by responsible ownership, strict terms, and conditions.

d. System of penalties

- Under the RPC

Article 76. Legal period of duration of divisible penalties. – The legal period of
duration of divisible penalties shall be considered as divided into three parts,
forming three periods, the minimum, the medium, and the maximum in the
manner shown in the following table:
 TABLE SHOWING THE DURATION OF DIVISIBLE PENALTIES AND THE
TIME INCLUDED IN EACH OF THEIR PERIODS

Full Range of
Penalties Minimum Medium Maximum
the Penalty

included in the included in its included in

included in its
penalty in its minimum its
medium period
entirety period maximum

From 14
From 17
From 12 years years, 8
From 12 years years, 4
Reclusion and 1 day to months and 1
and 1 day to months and
temporal 14 years and 8 day to 17
20 years. 1 day to 20
months. years and 4
years.
months.

Prision mayor,
absolute From 10
From 6 years From 6 years From 8 years
disqualification years and 1
and 1 day to and 1 day to 8 and 1 day to
and special day to 12
12 years. years. 10 years.
temporary years.
disqualification

From 2 years, From 4

Prision From 6 months
From 6 months 4 months and years, 2
correccional, and 1 day to 2
and 1 day to 6 1 day to 4 months and
suspension years and 4
years. years and 2 1 day to 6
and destierro months.
months. years.

From 2 From 4
From 1 month
From 1 to 2 months and 1 months and
Arresto mayor and 1 day to
months. day to 4 1 day to 6
months.
months. months.

From 1 to 30 From 1 to 10 From 11 to 20 From 21 to

Arresto menor
days. days. days. 30 days.
- Under special penal laws

Penalties defined under special penal laws make use of the word
“imprisonment”, and drops the use of penalties in the Spanish language. One
example is the Republic Act No. 10173 also known as the Data Privacy Act of
2012, which defines the crime of Unauthorized Disclosure and penalizes the
act as follows:

Section 32. Unauthorized Disclosure. – (a) Any personal information controller

or personal information processor or any of its officials, employees or agents,
who discloses to a third party personal information not covered by the
immediately preceding section without the consent of the data subject, shall
he subject to imprisonment ranging from one (1) year to three (3) years and
a fine of not less than Five hundred thousand pesos (Php500,000.00) but not
more than One million pesos (Php1,000,000.00).

e. Cases:

1) Arsenia Garcia vs. CA, GR No. 157171, 14 March 2006

2) US vs. Go Chico, GR No. 4963, September 15, 1909
3) Padilla vs. Dizon, 158 SCRA 127 (1988), A.C. No. 3086, February
23, 1988
4) Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560. November 19, 2001
5) Go vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 172602, April 13, 2007
6) Teves vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 180363, April 28, 2009
7) People vs. Saley, GR No. 121179, July 2, 1998
8) Sanchez vs. People G.R. No. 179090, June 5, 2009
9) People vs. Simon, G.R. No. 93028, July 29, 1994, 234 SCRA 555
10) Ladonga vs. People, G.R. No. 141066, February 17, 2005
11) People vs. Bustinera, G.R. No. 148233, June 8, 2004, 431 SCRA
284
12) Go-Tan vs. Tan, GR No. 168852, September 30, 2008, 567 SCRA
23