SPECIAL PENAL LAWS MALA IN SE AND MALA PROHIBITA Violations of the Revised Penal Code are referred to as malum in se, which literally literally means, means, that the act is inheren inherently tly evil or bad or per se wrongful. wrongful. On the othe otherr hand hand,, viol violat atio ions ns of spec specia iall laws laws are are gene genera rall lly y refer eferrred to as malu malum m prohibitum. Note, however, however, that not all violations violations of special special laws are are mala prohibita. prohibita. While intentional felonies are always mala in se, it does not follow that prohibited acts done in violation of of special laws are are always mala prohibita. prohibita. ven if the crime is punished under a special law, if the act punished is one which is inherently wrong, wrong, the same is malum in se, and, therefore, good faith and the lac! of criminal intent is a valid defense" unless it is the product of criminal negligence or culpa. #i!ewise when the special laws re$uires that the punished act be committed !nowingl !nowingly y and wilfully wilfully,, criminal criminal intent is re$uir re$uired ed to be proved proved before before criminal criminal liability may arise. When the act penali%ed is not inherently wrong, it is wrong only because a law punishes the same. &or &or e'ampl e'ample, e, Presi Presiden dentia tiall (ecre (ecree e No. No. )*+ punis punishes hes piracy piracy in Phi Philip lippin pine e waters and the special special law punishing brigandage brigandage in the highways. highways. hese acts are inher inherent ently ly wrong wrong and altho although ugh they they are are punish punished ed under under speci special al law, law, the acts acts themselves are mala in se" thus, good faith or lac! of criminal intent is a defense.
Distinction between crimes punishe uner the Re!ise Pen"# Coe "n crimes punishe uner speci"# #"ws
%$As to mor"# or"# tr"i tr"itt o& o& th the o' o'ene ner
-n crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code, the moral trait of the oender is considered. his is why liability would only arise when there is dolo or culpa in the commission of the punishable act. -n crimes punished under special laws, the moral trait of the oender is not considered" it is enough that the prohibited act was voluntarily done.
(%
As to use use o& o& )o )oo &"it &"ith h "s "s e e&ense
-n crime crimes s punis punished hed under the Revise evised d Penal Penal Code, good faith faith or lac! lac! of criminal intent is a valid defense" unless the crime is the result of culpa -n crimes punished under special laws, good faith is not a defense
*%
As to e)r e)ree ee o& "cco "ccomp mp#i #ish shme ment nt o& the the cri crime me
-n crimes imes puni punis shed und under the Revis evised ed Pena enal Code, ode, the degr egree of accomplishment of the crime is ta!en into account in punishing the oender" thus, there are attempted, frustrated, frustrated, and consummated stages in the commission of the crime. -n crimes punished under special laws, the act gives rise to a crime only when it is consummated" there are no attempted or frustrated stages, unless the special law e'pressly penali%e the mere attempt or frustration of the crime.
+%
As to mit miti) i)"t "tin in) ) "n "n "))r "))r"! "!"t "tin in) ) cir circu cums mst" t"nc nces es
-n crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code, mitigating and aggravating circumstances are ta!en into account in imposing the penalty since the moral trait of the oender is considered. -n crimes punished under special laws, mitigating and aggravating circumstances are not ta!en into account in imposing the penalty.
,%
As to e)ree o& p"rticip"tion
-n crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code, when there is more than one oender, the degree of participation of each in the commission of the crime is ta!en into account in imposing the penalty" thus, oenders are classi/ed as principal, accomplice and accessory. -n crimes punished under special laws, the degree of participation of the oenders is not considered. 0ll who perpetrated the prohibited act are penali%ed to the same e'tent. here is no principal or accomplice or accessory to consider.
-uestions . Answers
1. hree hi2ac!ers accosted the pilot of an airplane. hey compelled the pilot to change destination, but before the same could be accomplished, the military was alerted. What was the crime committed3 Grave coercion. There is no such thing as attempted hijacking. Under special laws, the penalty is not imposed unless the act is consummated. Crimes committed against the provisions of a special law are penalized only when the pernicious eects, which such law seeks to prevent, arise.
+. 0 mayor awarded a concession to his daughter. 4he was also the highest bidder. he award was even endorsed by the municipal council as the most advantageous to the municipality. he losing bidder challenged the validity of the contract, but the trial court sustained its validity. he case goes to the 4andiganbayan and the mayor gets convicted for violation of Republic 0ct No. *516 70nti89raft and Corrupt Practices 0ct:. ;e appeals alleging his defenses raised in the 4andiganbayan that he did not pro/t from the transaction, that the contract was advantageous to the municipality, and that he did not act with intent to gain. Rule. udgment a!rmed. The contention of the mayor that he did not pro"t anything from the transaction, that the contract was advantageous to the municipality, and that he did not act with intent to gain, is not a defense. The crime involved is malum prohi#itum.
$n the case of People v. Sunico, an election registrar was prosecuted for having failed to include in the voter%s register the name of a certain voter. There is a provision in the election law which proscri#es any person from preventing or disenfranchising a voter from casting his vote. $n trial, the election registrar raised as good faith as a defense. The trial court convicted him saying that good faith is not a defense in violation of special laws. &n appeal, it was held #y the 'upreme Court that disenfranchising a voter from casting his vote is not wrong #ecause there is a provision of law declaring it as a crime, #ut #ecause with or without a law, that act is wrong. $n other words, it is malum in se. Conse(uently, good faith is a defense. 'ince the prosecution failed to prove that the accused acted with malice, he was ac(uitted.
Test to etermine i& !io#"tion o& speci"# #"w is m"#um prohibitum or m"#um in se 0naly%e the violation< -s it wrong because there is a law prohibiting it or punishing it as such3 -f you remove the law, will the act still be wrong3 -f the wording of the law punishing the crime uses the word =wilfully>, then malice must be proven. Where malice is a factor, good faith is a defense. -n violation of special law, the act constituting the crime is a prohibited act. herefore culpa is not a basis of liability, unless the special law punishes an omission. When given a problem, ta!e note if the crime is a violation of the Revised Penal Code or a special law. *.
(istinguish between crimes mala in se and crimes mala prohibita.
Crimes mala in se are felonious acts committed #y dolo or culpa as de"ned in the )evised *enal Code. +ack of criminal intent is a valid defense, ecept when the crime results from criminal negligence. &n the other hand, crimes mala prohi#ita are those considered wrong only #ecause they are prohi#ited #y statute. They constitute violations of mere rules of convenience designed to secure a more orderly regulation of the aairs of society.
$n -mala in se-, the acts constituting the crimes are inherently evil, #ad or wrong, and hence involves the moral traits of the oender while in -mala prohi#ita-, the acts constituting the crimes are not inherently #ad,
evil or wrong #ut prohi#ited and made punisha#le only for pu#lic good. /nd #ecause the moral trait of the oender is involved in -mala in se-. 0odifying circumstances, the oender1s etent of participation in the crime, and the degree of accomplishment of the crime are taken into account in imposing the penalty2 these are not so in -mala prohi#ita- where criminal lia#ility arises only when the acts are consummated.
$n crimes mala in se, good faith or lack of criminal intent3 negligence is a defense, while in crimes mala prohi#ita, good faith or lack of criminal intent or malice is not a defense it is enough that the prohi#ition was voluntarily violated. /lso, criminal lia#ility is generally incurred in crimes mala in se even when the crime is only attempted or frustrated, while in crimes mala prohi#ita, criminal lia#ility is generally incurred only when the crime is consummated.
/lso in crimes mala in se, mitigating and aggravating circumstances are appreciated in imposing the penalties, while in crimes mala prohi#ita, such circumstances are not appreciated unless the special law has adopted the scheme or scale of penalties under the )evised *enal Code.
?. @ay an act be malum in se and be, at the same time, malum prohibitum3 4es, an act may #e malum in se and malum prohi#itum at the same time. $n *eople v. 'unico, et a+. 5C/ 67 &G 68879 it was held that the omission or failure of election inspectors and poll clerks to include a voter1s name in the list of voters is wrong per se #ecause it disenfranchises a voter of his right to vote. $n this regard it is considered as malum in se. 'ince it is punished under a special law 5'ec. :7: and :7;, )evised
). @ay an act be malum in se and be, at the same time, malum prohibitum3 4es, an act may #e malum in se and malum prohi#itum at the same time. $n *eople v. 'unico, et a+. 5C/ 67 &G 68879 it was held that the omission or failure of election inspectors and poll clerks to include a voter1s name in the list of voters is wrong per se #ecause it disenfranchises a voter of his right to vote. $n this regard it is considered as malum in se. 'ince it is punished under a special law 5'ec. :7: and :7;, )evised
A. went
@r. Carlos 9abisi, a customs guard, and @r. Rico Bto, a private -ndividual, to the oce of @r. (iether Ocuarto, a customs bro!er, and
represented themselves as agents of @oonglow Commercial rading, an -mporter of childrenDs clothes and toys. @r. 9abisi and @r. Bto engaged @r. Ocuarto to prepare and /le with the Eureau of Customs the necessary -mport ntry and -nternal Revenue (eclaration covering @oonglowDs shipment. @r. 9abisi and @r. Bto submitted to @r. Ocuarto a pac!ing list, a commercial invoice, a bill of lading and a 4worn -mport (uty (eclaration which declared the shipment as childrenDs toys, the ta'es and duties of which were computed at PA5,555.55. @r. Ocuarto /led the aforementioned documents with the @anila -nternational Container Port. ;owever, before the shipment was released, a spot chec! was conducted by Customs 4enior 0gent Fames Eandido, who discovered that the contents of the van 7shipment: were not childrenDs toys as declared in the shipping documents but 1,555 units of video cassette recorders with ta'es and duties computed at PA55,555.55. 0 hold order and warrant of sei%ure and detention were then issued by the (istrict Collector of Customs. &urther investigation showed that @oonglow is non8e'istent. Conse$uently, @r. 9abisi and @r. Bto were charged with and convicted for violation of 4ection *7e: of R.0. *516 which ma!es it unlawful among others, for public ocers to cause any undue -n2ury to any party, including the 9overnment. -n the discharge of ocial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross ine'cusable negligence. -n their motion for reconsideration, the accused alleged that the decision was erroneous because the crime was not consummated but was only at an attempted stage, and that in fact the 9overnment did not suer any undue in2ury.
a: -s the contention of both accused correct3 'plain3 4es, the contention of the accused that the crime was not consummated is correct, )/. ;7:= is a special law punishing acts mala prohi#ita. /s a rule, attempted a special law is not punished. /ctual injury is re(uired.
G.
Which of the following is a crime malum in se3 a.
Oenses punished by the Revised lection Code, a special law, for the omission or failure to include a voterHs name in the in the registry list of voters. b. -llegal possession of /rearms c. Violation of EP ++ for issuing a bouncing chec! % O'enses e/ne "n punishe b0 the Re!ise Pen"# Coe% e. Carnapping #aw f. (angerous (rugs #aw
I.
-n crimes mala prohibita, the criminal liability of the oender is determined by his< a. b. c. d.
criminal intent intent to perpetr"te the "ct negligence, lac! of foresight, lac! of s!ill ignorance of the law
e.
6.
mista!e of fact
Crimes mala prohibita are< a. b. c. % e.
9enerally embodied in the Revised Penal Code Punishable with life imprisonment and never with reclusion perpetua 0lways wrong acts hence should be penali%ed 1ener"##0 not re2uire to be "ttene b0 m"#ice "n e!i# intent ;einous crimes
