Philippine Criminal Law Reviewer PDF

RPC, Art. 366 RPC, Art. 3 - Acts and Omissions punishable by law are felonies - Application of Laws Enacted Prior to this Code. — Without (delitos) Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit (dolo) but preju...

RPC, Art. 366 RPC, Art. 3 - Acts and Omissions punishable by law are felonies - Application of Laws Enacted Prior to this Code. — Without (delitos) Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit (dolo) but prejudice to the provisions contained in Article 22 of this Code, also by means of fault (culpa). There is deceit when the act is felonies and misdemeanors committed prior to the date of performed with deliberate intent; and there is fault when the wrongful effectiveness of this Code shall be punished in accordance act results from imprudence. Negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of with the Code or Acts in force at the time of their commission. skill. RPC, Art. 21 RPC, Art. 4. - Criminal Liability - Criminal Liability shall be incurred: - Penalties that may be imposed. - No felony shall be punishable by any penalty not prescribed by law prior to its 1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the commission. wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. 2. By any person performing an act which would be an offense RPC, Art. 22 against persons or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the - Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor employment of inadequate or ineffectual means the person guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code, RPC, Art. 6.- Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies. – Consummated felonies as well as those which are frustrated and although at the time of the publication of such laws a final attempted, are punishable. sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving the same. A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present; and it is frustrated when Nullum Crimen Nulla Poena Sine Lege (there is no crime when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce there is no law punishing it) the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. Civil Code, Art. 4 There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of - Laws Shall have no retroactive effect unless the contrary is a felony directly or over acts, and does not perform all the acts of provided. execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than this own spontaneous desistance. RPC, Art. 62 RPC, Art. 8 - Aggravating circumstances which in themselves constitute a crime specially punishable by law or which are included by Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony. the law in defining a crime and prescribing the penalty therefore shall not be taken into account for the purpose of - Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are punishable only increasing the penalty. in the cases in which the law specifically provides penalty thereof.  - A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an Petitioner, Kay Villegas Kami, Inc., claimed to be a duly recognized agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide and existing non-stock and non-profit corporation and prayed for to commit it. the determination of the validity of Sec. 8 (a) of R.A. No. 6132 - There is proposal when the person who has decided to entitled the “The 1971 Constitutional Convention Act” and a commit a felony proposes its execution to some other person declaration of petitioner’s rights and duties thereunder. or persons. Included in their petition is that they have printed materials designed to propagate their ideology and program of government and petitioner intends to pursue its purposes by supporting delegates in the Constitutional Convention who will propagate its ideology. Kay Villegas Kami, Inc. alleges that Sec. 8 of the aforementioned law violates the due process clause, right of association and freedom of expression and that it is an ex post facto law. Ruling: Petition was denied. Ratio: The Court ruled that the law did not fall under the classification of ex post facto law and that the imposition of penalty under Sec. 18 of the same law is imposed only for acts committed after the approval of the law and not those perpetrated prior to its approval. As seen in Sec. 23 of R.A. No. 6132,the entire law shall be effective upon its approval. Therefore it is not an ex post facto law Comments/Notes: What is an Ex post facto law and what are its requisites? What is a Bill of Attainder? Ex Post facto law is a penal law that is given retroactive application to the prejudice of the accused. Bill of Attainder - a legislative act that inflicts punishment Makes an act punishable as a crime when such act was not without judicial trial or due process. an offense when committed. Bureau of Customs Employees Assoc. v. Teves, G.R. No. In Re: Kay Villegas Kami, 35 SCRA 429 (1970) 181704, December 6, 2011 (E.B.) Issue: Whether or not Sec 8 (a) of R.A. No. 6132 is an ex post facto Issue: Whether or not R.A. No. 9335 is a bill of attainder law. proscribed under Section 22, Article III of the 1987 Facts: Constitution.  the grounds for the termination of a BIR or BOC official Facts: or employee and provides for the consequences Republic Act No. 9335, signed into law by former thereof. The democratic processes are still followed and President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on January 25, the constitutional rights of the concerned employee are 2005, and effective from February 11, 2005, was amply protected. enacted to enhance the revenue-generation capabilities of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) and the Bureau Comments/Notes: of Customs (BOC). The law aimed to encourage BIR and BOC officials and employees to exceed their revenue targets by establishing a system of rewards 3. Why and how are judicial decisions made part of the law of the and sanctions through the creation of a Rewards and land? Incentives Fund and a Revenue Performance Evaluation Board. This law applies to all BIR and BOC - Judicial decisions become part of the law of the land primarily officials and employees with at least six months of through the Doctrine of stare decisis and the principle of service. judicial review. The Board's responsibilities include setting rules for the distribution of the Fund, establishing criteria for Stare decisis - “to stand by things decided.” It is a legal principle that performance evaluation and removal of obligates courts to follow the precedents established in previous underperforming employees, and other related duties. cases. When a higher court, such as a Supreme Court, decides a However, the Bureau of Customs Employees legal issue, that decision serves as a binding precedent for lower Association (BOCEA) challenged the constitutionality of courts within the same jurisdiction. (Art. 8, NCC) R.A. No. 9335, filing a petition before the Supreme Court. BOCEA argued that the law is a bill of attainder, as it allegedly imposes punishment—specifically The power of judicial review in the Philippines allows the removal from service—on a specific group of Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of laws, employees without trial or the benefit of a hearing, executive actions, and other government measures. This making the penalty immediately executory. power is granted by the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which empowers the judiciary to nullify laws and acts that are found Ratio: to be unconstitutional. R.A. No. 9335 is not a bill of attainder. A bill of ○ For instance, when the Supreme Court declares a law attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment on individuals or members of a particular group without a unconstitutional, that decision has the effect of striking judicial trial. Essential to a bill of attainder are a down the law, and it cannot be enforced. The specification of certain individuals or a group of interpretation and reasoning behind such decisions individuals, the imposition of a punishment, penalor become authoritative and are integrated into the otherwise, and the lack of judicial trial. country’s legal system. R.A. No. 9335 does not possess the elements of a bill of attainder. It does not seek to inflict punishment without a judicial trial. R.A. No. 9335 merely lays down  imprisonment which is longer than the maximum Gumabon v. Director of Prisons, 37 SCRA 420 (1971) sentence of prison mayor. Comments/Notes: Issue: Whether or not the judicial decisions of the court shall take part of the legal system and shall be applied retroactively in the case at bar Between a new law and an old law penalizing a specific act, which should be applied to a violation of the law? Facts: Writ of habeas corpus is filed by the Petitioners, for their If the act was committed when the old law was in effect, the old release from imprisonment. law should generally be applied. In People vs. Hernandez the court negated the nature of If the new law is more punitive, it cannot be applied to acts such an offense of complex crime of rebellion with multiple committed before the law took effect. murder, robbery, arson and kidnapping. In conclusion, the law that should be applied to a violation is Invoke their rights of equal protection, and prior ruling on generally the one that was in effect at the time the act was Jurisprudence shall take part of the legal system of the Philippines. committed, unless the new law is more favorable to the accused. Each petitioner has already served more than 13 years of imprisonment. People v. Bracamonte, 257 SCRA 380 (1996) Ruling: Court granted the writ of habeas corpus and ordered the release of the prisoners from imprisonment. Issue: Ratio: In the case at bar, the ruling on People V. Hernandez, the court ruled a sentence of prison mayor for the same act Facts: committed by the petitioners, and in this case the `act of rebellion. Prison mayor have a maximum DEFENDANTS sentence of 12 years, and it is against the constitutional Florentino BRACAMONTE rights of the petitioners if they are denied of equal Manuel SAPON protection. As settled in the prior ruling of the court, Ernie CABRAL judicial decisions shall take part in the legal system. The decision of the court should be applied retroactively to charged with crime of ROBBERY w/ DOUBLE HOMICIDE the petitioners, because they are favorable for them. accused by CITY FISCAL OF CAVITE Therefore, the petitioners are granted the writ of habeas corpus for having served more than 13 years of 9.23.1987 in Cavite the accused conspired and intently entered the house of VIOLETA PARNALA and by means of violence and intimidation, rob and take carry: "Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided." Necklace - 600 Ring - 440 This means that, generally, laws do not apply to events or actions that Son - Jay Vee Custodio occurred before the law was enacted unless the new law specifically states that it should apply retroactively. wilfully unlawfully and feloniously assault, attack, scald and stab Jay Vee Parnala Custodio (son) - 3 incised and 15 stab wounds Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code Teresita Minorca Rosalinas - 1 incised and 6 stab wounds on the different parts of their body, which ultimately caused their deaths. "Penal laws shall not be given retroactive effect unless the same be favorable to the accused, in which case, they shall have retroactive Ruling: effect even though the acts committed were prior to their promulgation." WHEREFORE, the Decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED, with the modification that the conviction is for robbery with homicide, and This means that new criminal laws that are more lenient or beneficial to the indemnity for the heirs of the two victims is hereby increased from an accused person can be applied retroactively. P30,000 to P50,000 each. Ratio: Although Republic Act No. 7659 reimposed the death penalty for When should a new law advantageous to the accused be certain heinous crimes, including robbery with homicide, the capital applied? punishment could not be imposed in the case at bench. The crime here was committed way back in September 23, 1987, while R.A. No. 7659 If the new law is more lenient or beneficial to the accused (e.g., it took effect only on December 31, 1993. To impose upon appellant the reduces the penalty or decriminalizes the act), the new law may death penalty would violate the basic rule in criminal law that, if the be applied retroactively to benefit the accused. new law imposes a heavier penalty, the law in force at the time of the commission of the offense shall be applied, which in this case is Article 294 (1) of the Revised Penal Code sans the death penalty clause by virtue of Section 19 (1), Article III of the 1987 Constitution which People v. Valdez, 304 SCRA 611 (1999) provides, viz:... Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for Issue: Whether or not the use of an unlicensed firearm can be it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion considered as a special aggravating circumstance. perpetua. Facts: Accused-appellant Rolando Valdez seeks reversal of the Comments/Notes: judgment of conviction promulgated bythe Regional Trial Court sentencing him to death for the complex crime of Multiple Murder with Double Frustrated Murder, and Article 4 of the Civil Code likewise separately sentencing him to suffer the prison term  The language of the repealing statute clearly indicates which of reclusion perpetua for the crime of Illegal Possession of laws or provisions are being annulled. Firearms and Ammunition (Presidential Decree No. 1866). a. Ex: A statute that includes a clause such as “All laws or The information alleges that the accused shot Ramon parts of laws inconsistent with this Act are hereby repealed.” Garcia, Jr., Jean Marie Garcia, Willy Acosta and Sandra 2. Implied Repeal - Implied repeal happens when a new law Montano, which caused their deaths, and seriously injured contains provisions that are irreconcilably inconsistent with William Montano and Randy Tibule. those of an earlier law, even if the new law does not explicitly The trial court convicted the accused of the crimes charged. state that the earlier law is repealed. a. The newer law is considered to take precedence, effectively Ratio: nullifying the older law to the extent of the inconsistency. No. The use of an unlicensed firearm in the case at bar b. Example: If a new law is passed that covers the same cannot be considered as a special aggravating subject matter as an older law but has different or conflicting circumstance in Criminal Case No. U-8747 (for Complex provisions, the older law is deemed repealed by implication Crime of Multiple Murder), also under review herein, in areas where they conflict. because it will unduly raise the penalty for the four counts of 3. Partial Repeal - Partial repeal refers to the annulment of only murder from four reclusion perpetua to that of four-fold specific sections, provisions, or parts of a law, while other death. parts remain in effect. Insofar as this particular provision of Republic Act No. a. Ex: A law that removes or alters certain articles or 8294 is not beneficial to accused-appellant because it provisions of an existing law but leaves the rest of the law unduly aggravates the crime, this new law will not be intact. given retroactive application, lest it might acquire the character of an ex-post facto law Comments/Notes: R.A. No. 10951 - AN ACT ADJUSTING THE AMOUNT OR THE b. Construction of Penal Laws VALUE OF PROPERTY AND DAMAGE ON WHICH A PENALTY 1. How should penal laws be construed and why? (i) IS BASED, AND THE FINES IMPOSED UNDER THE REVISED Strict and Liberal Construction PENAL CODE, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE ACT NO. 3815, - Penal laws are to be construed strictly against the state and in OTHERWISE KNOWN AS "THE REVISED PENAL CODE", AS favor of the accused. In the interpretation of a penal statute, AMENDED judges subject it to scrutiny and construe it to safeguard the 3. Repeal & Construction of Penal Laws (Campanilla, pp. rights of the accused. If the statute is ambiguous and admits 5-11) two reasonable but contradictory constructions, the provision that operates in favor of the accused is preferred. a. What are the different kinds of repeal of a law? - However, even if penal statutes are liberally construed against 1. Express Repeal - This occurs when a new law explicitly the state and in favor of the accused, it does not mean that the states that a prior law or certain provisions of it are repealed.  statute should be used to shield the accused from criminal Vicente Yco and petitioner Centeno guilty beyond liabilities. reasonable doubt and sentencing them to each pay a fine of P200.00. C. Liberal construction in favor of the accused; “Charitable” excludes “religious” in P.D. No. 1634: Ratio: No. It will be observed that the 1987 Constitution, as well as several other statutes, treat the words Centeno v. Pornillos, G.R. No. 113092, September 1, 1994 "charitable" and "religious" separately and independently of each other Indeed, it is an elementary rule of statutory construction that the express mention of one person, thing, act, or Issue: Whether or not the “charitable purposes” can be consequence excludes all others. This rule is construed to include “religious purpose” and can be a expressed in the familiar maxim "expressio uniusest violation of P.D. 1564 (Solicitation Permit Law) exclusion alterius." Where a statute, by its terms, is Facts: expressly limited to certain matters, it may not, by The records of this case reveal that sometime in the interpretation or construction, be extended to others. last quarter of 1985, the officers of a civic organization The rule proceeds from the premise that the legislature known as the Samahang Katandaan ng Nayon ng Tikay would not have made specified enumerations in a launched a fund drive for the purpose of renovating the statute had the intention been not to restrict its meaning chapel. and to confine its terms to those expressly mentioned. It is admitted that the solicitation was made without a permit from the Department of Social Welfare and Comments/Notes: Development. Presidential Decree No. 1564 (which amended Act No. 4075, otherwise known as the Solicitation Permit Law), As a consequence, based on the complaint of Judge provides as follows: Angeles, an information 1 was filed against petitioner Martin Centeno, together with Religio Evaristo and Sec. 2. Any person, corporation, organization, or Vicente Yco, for violation of Presidential Decree No. association desiring to solicit or receive contributions for 1564 charitable or public welfare purposes shall first secure a Petitioner filed a motion to quash the information on the permit from the Regional Offices of the Department of ground that the facts alleged therein do not constitute Social Services and Development as provided in the an offense, claiming that Presidential Decree No. 1564 Integrated Re-organization Plan. Upon the filing of a written only covers solicitations made for charitable or public application for a permit in the form prescribed by the welfare purposes, but not those made for a religious Regional Offices of the Department of Social Services and purpose suchas the construction of a chapel. Development, the Regional Director or his duly authorized This was denied by the trial court, and petitioner's representative may, in his discretion, issue a permanent or motion for reconsideration having met the same fate, temporary permit or disapprove the application. In the trial on the merits ensued.On December 29, 1992, the interest of the public, he may in his discretion renew or said trial court rendered judgment finding accused revoke any permit issued under Act 4075  penalty on the discourage the offender precisely commission of the act because his moral trait specially prohibited. People v. Ladjaalam, G.R. Nos. 136149-51. September 19, is the basis of his 2000 R.A. No. 10951 retroactively applied; crime. Hence, greater perversity deserves a Issue: higher penalty; whereas, lesser Facts: depravity deserves mitigation. Ruling: Degree of Penalty is computed The penalty for the Ratio: participation on the basis of offenders is the same as whether the malefactor they are all deemed Comments/Notes: is a principal offender, principals. or merely an Guidelines on the application of Hernan: accomplice or accessory. D. Crimes Defined and Penalized By Special Laws (Campanilla, pp. 2; 10-14) Stage of accomplishment The penalty imposed Violation of law is 1. Distinguish crimes “Mala In Se” and “Mala Prohibita?” depends on whether punished only when the crime is accomplished or consummated, consummated because MALA IN SE MALA PROHIBITA frustrated, or the intent is inherent in Basis Moral state of the Voluntariness; hence, attempted. the attempted or offender; hence, good good faith or lack of frustrated stage and faith or lack of criminal criminal intent is not a intent is not relevant in intent is a defense. defense, unless intent is crimes mala prohibita. an element of the crime such as in Sec. 3(e) of Moral Turpitude Generally involves Not involved because the RA 3019. moral turpitude act would not have been Modifying Taken into account in Not considered because logically, so its basis is wrong if not for the circumstances imposing the the law intends to the moral state of the prohibition of law.  the prohibited act under the special law must nevertheless be offender. shown. (Valenzona v. People) Law Violated Generally, the Revised Generally, special penal Criminal intent not necessary in mala prohibita offenses; Penal Code. laws. “Intent to commit the crime” and “Intent to perpetrate the act”: U.S. v. Go Chico, 14 Phil. 128 (1909) 2. Are all the crimes in the Revised Penal Code “mala - Criminal intent is not necessary for mala prohibita in se”? (Pp. 48-54) offenses, as these offenses are defined by the act itself rather than the individual's mental state. Yes. They are inherently evil and take into account moral traits - In the case of Go Chico, the court emphasized that merely displaying prohibited flags or 3. What is the distinction between the “Intent to emblems is sufficient to establish guilt, perpetrate the act” and “Intent to commit the regardless of intent or knowledge of the law. crime”? - The distinction between "intent to commit the crime" and "intent to perpetrate the act" is crucial: Care must be exercised in distinguishing the differences between the intent to commit the crime and the intent to - "Intent to commit the crime" refers to the perpetrate the act. The accused did not consciously mental state or purpose behind the intend to commit a crime; but he did intend to commit action, which is often irrelevant in mala an act, and the act is, by the very nature of things, the prohibita offenses. crime itself — intent and all. The wording of the law is such that the intent and the act are inseparable. The act is - "Intent to perpetrate the act" means the the crime. The accused intended to put the device in his individual intended to perform the act window. Nothing more is required to commit the crime. itself, which constitutes the offense. (US. v. Go Chico) - In such cases, the law implies a guilty intent On this note, it is important to distinguish between simply by the act being done, regardless of intent to commit the crime and intent to perpetrate the act whether the individual had a corrupt or criminal — while a person may not have consciously intended to commit a crime regarded as malum prohibitum, he or she mindset. may still be held liable if he or she did intend to commit - This approach ensures the law effectively deters an act that is, by the very nature of things, the crime itself. Thus, for acts that are mala prohibita, the intent to perpetrate harmful actions without the need for proving intent. *all highlighted case are the ones with check mark displaying flags, emblems, or devices used during the insurrection is sufficient to establish guilt, regardless of the defendant's knowledge of the law U.S. v. Go Chico, 14 Phil. 128 (1909) or intent. This principle emphasizes that the act itself can be deemed harmful to society and governmental authority, making the intention of the Issue: actor immaterial in such statutory offenses. whether a specific criminal intent is necessary for a violation of Act No. 1696, which prohibits the display of flags, Comments/Notes: emblems, or devices used during the insurrection in the - The court ruled that displaying flags, emblems, or Philippine Islands. (No) devices from the insurrection was enough to Facts: establish guilt, regardless of intent or knowledge. It Go Chico was charged with violating section 1 of upheld the lower court's decision to fine Go Chico, Act No. 1696, which prohibits the display of flags, emphasizing that the law aims to prevent actions emblems, or devices used during the insurrection in that could incite resistance to authority, focusing on the Philippine Islands. the act itself rather than the intent. The defendant displayed medallions featuring the - No, a specific criminal intent is not necessary for image of Emilio Aguinaldo and the flag used during a violation of Act No. 1696. The court ruled that the insurrection in his store window. the mere act of displaying the prohibited items is Go Chico claimed he was unaware of the law sufficient to establish guilt. prohibiting such displays and had no criminal intent. - section 1 of Act No. 1696, prohibits any person The Court of First Instance found him guilty and from exposing or permitting to be exposed to public imposed a fine of P500. view any flag, banner, emblem, or device used The court ruled that specific criminal intent was not during the insurrection in the Philippine Islands, or necessary for a conviction under the statute, any flag used by public enemies of the United emphasizing that the act of displaying the States for purposes of public disorder or rebellion prohibited items itself was sufficient to establish against the authority of the United States. Violators guilt. may be punished by a fine or imprisonment, or The law applies to any flag of that type, not just the both, at the discretion of the court. exact flags used during the insurrection, to prevent incitement against governmental authority. Valenzona V. People (2023) Ruling: - In the context of mala prohibita offenses, such as the The court ruled that criminal intent is not necessary for a conviction under mala prohibita offenses, violation of Presidential Decree No. 957 (P.D. 957), specifically regarding the violation of Act No. 1696. criminal intent is not necessary to establish guilt. Ratio: - The Supreme Court emphasized that for crimes Criminal intent is not required for a violation of classified as mala prohibita, the intent to commit the Act No. 1696. The court ruled that the mere act of crime is immaterial. - However, there must still be a demonstration of the volition or intent to perpetrate the prohibited act. Valenzona v. People, G.R. No. 248584, Dec. 14, 2023 - In such cases, the prosecution must prove that the accused had the volition or intent to commit the act of non-registration. Issue: - The prosecution does not need to prove criminal intent Facts: in the traditional sense. - Felix G. Valenzona was charged with violating - The distinction lies in that the prosecution must show Section 17 of Presidential Decree No. 957 (P.D. that the accused intended to engage in the act that 957). constitutes the violation, even if they did not intend to - He was the President of ALSGRO Industrial and commit a crime per se. Development Corporation, which sold subdivision lots in Muntinlupa City. - In March 2003, ALSGRO entered into contracts to sell two lots to Ricardo Porteo. - Porteo defaulted on payments and later discovered the contracts were not registered. - The prosecution alleged Valenzona failed to register the contracts within the required 180 days. - The Regional Trial Court found Valenzona guilty and imposed a penalty of imprisonment and a fine. - The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's decision. - The Supreme Court ultimately acquitted Valenzona, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Ruling: Ratio: Comments/Notes: Also: Criminal liability of a corporation Difference between the concept of mala in se and malum prohibitum; R.A. No. 9775 is a mala in se law:  Christian Cadajas y Cabias v. People of the Philippines, Intengan v. C.A., 377 SCRA 63 (2002)Re: Foreign Currency G.R. No. 247348. November 16, 2021 Deposit Act (R.A. No. 6426) Issue: Issue: Facts: Ruling: Facts: Ratio: Ruling: Comments/Notes: Ratio: Comments/Notes: Amended by Anti Hazing Act of 2018 Legislature power to enact malum prohibitum: (R.A. No. 11053) 4. Why is proof of malice or deliberate intent (mens rea) unnecessary for violation of special penal laws?: Dungo v. People, G.R. No. 209464, July 1, 2015 Re; Anti Hazing Law of 2015 (R.A. No. 7049) “The respondent ought to know that proof of malice or deliberate intent (mens rea) is not essential in offenses punished by special laws, which are mala prohibita.” Issue: (Padilla v. Dizon) Facts: Special Laws do not require moral trait, the fact that the act was done is enough. Ruling: Ratio: Padilla v. Dizon, 158 SCRA 127 (1988) Comments/Notes: Amended by Anti Hazing Act of 2018 (R.A. No. 11053) Issue: Facts: Ruling:  Ratio: Facts: Comments/Notes: On April 25, 2001, the Sandiganbayan issued a resolution in Criminal Case No. 26558, finding probable cause that petitioner Joseph Ejercito Estrada, then the President of the Philippines has committed the offense of plunder, and that 5. Are the offenses in the Anti-Plunder Law (R.A. he be prosecuted under RA 7080 (An Act Defining and 7080) mala prohibita? Penalizing the Crime of Plunder). The petitioner contended that RA 7080 was unconstitutional, on the grounds that 1.) it was vague; 2.) it dispenses with the “reasonable doubt” No. they are mala in se. standard in criminal prosecutions; and 3.) It abolishes the element of mens rea in crimes already punishable under The legislative declaration in R.A. No. 7659 that plunder is The Revised Penal Code, thus violating the fundamental a heinous offense implies that it is a malum in se. For when rights of the accused. The said law allegedly suffers from the acts punished are inherently immoral or inherently vagueness on the terms it uses, particularly: ‘combination’, wrong, they are mala in se and it does not matter that such ‘series’, and ‘unwarranted’. Based on this, the petitioner acts are punished in a special law, especially since in the used the facial challenge to question the validity of RA case of plunder the predicate crimes are mainly mala in se. 7080. Indeed, it would be absurd to treat prosecutions for plunder as though they are mere prosecutions for violations of the Ruling: Bouncing Check Law (B.P. Blg. 22) or of an ordinance against jaywalking, without regard to the inherent Premises considered, the Court holds that RA 7080 wrongness of the acts. (Estrada v. Sandiganbayan) otherwise known as the Plunder Law, as amended by RA 7659, is CONSTITUTIONAL. Thus, the petition to declare the law unconstitutional is DISMISSED for lack of merit. Ratio: Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, 369 SCRA 394 (2001) *See: J. Mendoza’s concurring* NO. Plunder is a malum in se which requires proof of criminal intent. The legislative declaration in RA No. 7659 (which has been declared as constitutionally valid in a Issue: previous ruling) that plunder is a heinous offense implies that it is a malum in se. W/N Plunder as defined in RA 7080 is a mala prohibita, and if so, whether it is within the power of Congress to classify it as such. Comments/Notes: 6.) Distinguish criminal intent and “animus possidendi” - Element in Special Penal Laws which is a necessary element in some special penal laws? - Animus Possidendi is essential in some special laws where simply having certain CRIMINAL INTENT: items is a crime. The prosecution must prove the person intended to have the - The mental state or intention of a person when item, unlike general criminal intent, which committing a crime. It is necessary for covers a wider range of criminal actions. establishing liability in most felonies. - Encompasses a broad range of mental states 7.) Give an example of an offense under a special related to committing various crimes. penal law that requires proof of animus possidendi?: - Two Types: - Specific Criminal Intent: Intention to Example: An example of a crime under a special law bring about a specific result or engage in that needs proof of "animus possidendi" (intent to a specific act that constitutes a crime possess) is illegal possession of firearms, defined under (e.g., intent to steal). Republic Act No. 10591, the Comprehensive Firearms - General Criminal Intent: Intention to and Ammunition Regulation Act. commit the act itself, regardless of the outcome. (e.g., intent to hit someone To convict someone of illegal possession of a firearm, without regard to the injury caused). the prosecution must prove that the person intended to - Application: Needed to prove guilt in most possess the firearm. This means the person must have serious crimes. knowingly and deliberately controlled the firearm without the required permits or licenses. For example, if someone is found with a firearm but ANIMUS POSSIDENDI: doesn't have a license, simply having the firearm isn't enough for a conviction. The prosecution must show that - The intent to possess something, relevant in the person intended to possess the firearm. If the person cases involving possession of prohibited items, was just holding it temporarily, like picking it up to hand it such as firearms. to someone else, and didn't mean to keep or control it, - Focuses on the intention to have control over an this might not count as illegal possession. item. - Application: Important in cases where just having certain items is illegal (e.g., illegal possession of guns or drugs). People v. Dela Rosa, G.R. No. 84857, Jan. 16, 1988(/) - Requirement: The prosecution must show that the person intended to possess the prohibited Issue: item to prove guilt.  (7.1) Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995 & "Safe Spaces Act" (R.A. No. 11313, April 17, 2018); Facts: Ruling: Ratio: Comments/Notes: Escandor v. People, G.R. No. 211962, July 6, 2020 Issue: Facts: Luna vs. People, G.R. No. 231902. June 30, 2021 Ruling: Issue: Ratio: Facts: Comments/Notes: Ruling: Ratio: Also: Real party in criminal & in civil cases; Three-fold liability Comments/Notes: 5. Relation of RPC to special penal laws (P. 145-152) Also: R.A. No. 9165, Sec. 11, Art. 2 1. When is the RPC made applicable or supplementary to Possession of Dangerous Drugs. - The penalty of life special penal laws? imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos RPC, Art. 10. - Offenses not subject to the provisions of this Code. (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless Offenses which are or in the future may be punishable under special authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous drug in the laws are not subject to the provisions of this Code. This Code shall be following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof: supplementary to such laws, unless the latter should specially provide the contrary. R.A. No. 8484, Sec. 12 & 13 Penalties taken from the RPC: Carnapping not qualified theft or robbery: Padilla v. C.A., 269 SCRA 402 (1997) People v. Bustinera, G.R. No. 148233, [June 8, 2004] Issue: “... through another”, R.A. 9262; Qualified Theft (Art. Facts: Go-Tan v. Tan, G.R. No. 168852, [September 30, 2008] Ruling: Ratio: b) What is meant by crimes involving moral turpitude? Comments/Notes: c) Is homicide always an offense involving moral turpitude? Teves v. Comelec, G.R. No. 180363, April 28, 2009** Read J. Brion, Concurring Circumstances modifying criminal liability: People v. Saley, G.R. No. 121179, [July 2, 1998], 6. Courts & Acts Not Punished; & Excessive Penalties: Also Illegal recruitment under the Labor Code a) What should a court do when it deems an act not Limited Applicability of the Revised Penal Code. punished by law should be punished? Or when the penalty for an offense is in its minds excessive? Sec. 98, R.A. 9165 RPC, Art. 5 (Pp. 89-94) People v. Simon, G.R. No. 93028, [July 29, 1994]**] Impose penalty under law: See J. Davide concurring and dissenting People v. Veneracion,G.R. Nos. 119987-88, [October 12, 1995]** RPC supplementary & Conspiracy (Art. 8) People v. Santos y Parajas, G.R. No. 237982, [October 14, 2020]T Ladonga v. People, G.R. No. 141066, [February 17, 2005]  Also: Continuous crime; Article 70 Successive Service of In every criminal case, the accused is entitled to acquittal unless Sentences his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. the evidence must be convincing enough to remove any reasonable doubt in the mind of an average person. (People V. Claro) Lito Corpuz v. People, G.R. No. 180016, April 29, 2014 People v. Claro, G.R. No. 199894, April 5, 2017 Issue: Facts: Ruling: Issue: Ratio: Facts: Comments/Notes: Ruling: Ratio: R.A. No. 10951 (An Act Adjusting the Amount or the Comments/Notes: Value of Property and Damage on Which a Penalty is Prosecution’s Burden to Prove: Based and the Fines Imposed Under the Revised Penal Code, Amending for the Purpose Act No. 3815, Otherwise People v. Cadenas, G.R. No. 233199, Nov. 05, 2018 Known as "The Revised Penal Code", as Amended- July Issue: 2017) Facts: Ruling: 7. Evidence in Criminal Cases Ratio: a) What is the level of proof in criminal cases and why? Comments/Notes: Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt Also: Circumstantial evidence when sufficient to convict; motive & alibi