Crim Rev: Fundamental Principles of Criminal Law
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW
The constitutionality of Sections 4 and 7 of Republic Act No. 8249, an act which further defines the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, is being challenged for its retroactive application. Petitioner Panfilo Lacson, joined by petitioners intervenors Romeo Acop and Francisco Zubia, Jr., also seeks to prevent the Sandiganbayan from proceedings with the trial of Criminal Cases Nos. 23047-23057 (for multiple murder) against them on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Is Republic Act No. 8249 a penal law?
No, Republic Act No. 8249 is not a penal law.
Republic Act No. 8249 is a substantive law on jurisdiction which is not penal in character. Criminal law is a branch of public law which defines crimes, treats their nature, and provides for their punishment. Republic Act No. 8249 is a procedural statute. Since Republic Act No. 8249 is not a penal law, its retroactive application cannot be challenged as unconstitutional.
Congress passed a law reviving the Anti-Subversion Law, making it a criminal offense again for a person to join the Communist Party of the Philippines. Reporma, a former high-ranking member of the Communist Party, was charged under the new law for his membership in the Communist Party when he was a student in the 80’s. He now challenges the charge against him. What objections may he raise? (2014 BAR)
Reforma may object to the new law for being an ex post facto law which is prohibited under the Constitution.
An ex post facto law penalizes a person for an act committed prior to its enactment. The Bill of Rights of the Constitution prohibits the passage of an ex post facto law.
As a rule, penal laws should not be applied retroactively when prejudicial to the accused.
In this case, Reforma was charged under the new law for his previous membership. Thus, may object to the new law for being an ex post facto law which prejudices his right as an accused.
What is the doctrine of pro reo? How does it relate to Art. 48 of the RPC? (2010 BAR)
The doctrine of pro reo provides that “when in doubt, rule in favor of the accused.”
It essentially provides that in cases of ambiguity in the interpretation of penal laws, it should be construed liberally in favor of the accused. This principle is consistent with the constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent until his guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt.
What is the fundamental principle in applying and interpreting criminal laws x x x? (2012 BAR)
Criminal laws are liberally construed in favor of the accused and strictly construed against the state.
It essentially means that in cases of ambiguity in the interpretation of penal laws, it should be construed liberally in favor of the accused consistent with the constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent until his guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt.
During the 2022 national elections, Bern posted on her Facebook page a statement that Alfredo, an incumbent mayor vying for re-election, has a pending corruption case with the Sandiganbayan for pocketing Php 20,000,000.00 of public funds under his custody.
Czarina, Bern's friend, saw the post and commented online, stating: "Bhie, true yan. Alfredo is so corrupt. Marami ding binabahay yan. Sugarol pa!"
Donnabel, also Bern's friend, reacted to Bern's post by clicking the "like" button.
Another person, Justine, who is a stranger to Bern and her friends, but who claims to be a crusader for good governance, came across the said post. Finding it relevant to her advocacy and crusade, Justine shared the link to Bern's post on her Twitter account.
Who among Bern, Czarina, Donnabel, and Justine, if any, are liable for the crime of Cyberlibel? Explain briefly. (2022 BAR)
Only Bern shall be liable for Cyberlibel.
Under RA 10175 or the Cybercrime Law, commenting, liking, or sharing a libelous post does not subject a person to a criminal liability. There is no crime when there is no law punishing it.
In this case, Czarina, Donnabel and Justine merely liked, shared and retweeted Bern’s post. Thus, in absence of legislation punishing their acts, only Bern can be charged with the crime of cyberlibel.
Distinguish between crimes mala in se and mala prohibita. (2019, 2017, 2005, 2003, 2001, 1999, 1997, 1988 BAR)
Mala in se are inherently wrong or immoral, while mala prohibita are only considered wrong because they are prohibited by law;
In mala in se, good faith or lack of criminal intent is a defense, while in mala prohibita, it is not;
Mala in se are punishable under the RPC or by special laws where the acts punishable are inherently wrong by nature, while ala prohibita are generally punishable under special laws.
May an act be malum in se and be, at the same time, malum prohibitum? (1997 BAR)
Yes, an act be malum in se and be, at the same time, malum prohibitum.
Disenfranchising a voter is inherently wrong (malum in se) because they violate a fundamental right, but at the same time is also be prohibited by a specific law in which good faith is not a defense (malum prohibitum).
Tonito, an 8-year-old boy, was watching a free concert at the Luneta Park with his father Tony. The child stood on a chair to be able to see the performers on the stage. Juanito, a 10-year-old boy, who was also watching the concert, could not see much of the performance on the stage because Tonito was blocking his line of sight by standing on the chair. Using his elbow, Juanito strongly shoved Tonito to get a good view of the stage. The shove caused Tonito to fall to the ground.
Seeing this, Tony struck Juanito on the head with his hand and caused the boy to fall and to hit his head on a chair. Tony also wanted to strangle Juanito but the latter's aunt prevented him from doing so. Juanito sustained a lacerated wound on the head that required medical attendance for 10 days.
Tony was charged with child abuse in violation of Sec. 10(a), in relation to Sec. 3(b)(2), of R.A. No. 7610 (Child Abuse Law) for allegedly doing an "act by deeds or words which debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being." In his defense, Tony contended that he had no intention to maltreat Juanito, much less to degrade his intrinsic worth and dignity as a human being. (2017 BAR)
Tony’s defense of lack of intention to maltreat or degrade the intrinsic worth and dignity of Juanito is untenable.
Violations of R.A. No. 7610 or Child Abuse Law are malum prohibitum in nature in which good faith is not a defense. Malum prohibitum are not inherently wrong or immoral unlike mala in se. However, malum prohibitum are punished because there exists a law prohibiting such acts for public good.
State the characteristics of criminal law and explain each. (1998, 1988 BAR)
The following are the characteristics of criminal law:
Generality – Penal laws are binding upon all who live or sojourn in the Philippine territory, regardless of age, sex, color, creed or personal circumstances.
Territoriality - Penal laws are applicable to all crimes committed within the Philippine territory, including internal waters, its atmosphere and maritime zone.
Prospectivity - Penal laws shall not have a retroactive effect, except it is favorable to the accused, unless he or she is a habitual delinquent of the law expressly provided otherwise.
Charges d'affaires Volvik of Latvia suffers from a psychotic disorder after he was almost assassinated in his previous assignment. One day, while shopping in a mall, he saw a group of shoppers whom he thought were the assassins who were out to kill him. He asked for the gun of his escort and shot ten (10) people and wounded five (5) others before he was subdued. The wounded persons required more than 30 days of medical treatment. What crime or crimes, if any, did he commit? Explain. (2016 BAR)
Volvik committed five (5) frustrated murders for the unwounded victims and five (5) frustrated murders for the wounded victims. In this case, there is treachery because of the sudden attack rendering the victims defenseless. The nature of the weapon used in attacking the victims showed intent to kill.
However, Volvik is not criminally liable due to his position as a charges de affaires. As a diplomat, Volvic enjoys immunity from criminal prosecution in the Philippines.
Pierce is a French diplomat stationed in the Philippines. While on EDSA and driving with an expired license, he hit a pedestrian who was crossing illegally. The pedestrian died. Pierce was charged with reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. In his defense, he claimed diplomatic immunity. Is Pierce correct? (2014 BAR)
YES, Pierce is correct in claiming diplomatic immunity.
Pierce, being a French diplomat stationed in the Philippines, is exempt from the general application of our criminal laws, as provided for under laws or treaties of preferential application.
When committed outside the Philippine Territory, our courts DO NOT have jurisdiction over the crime of? (2011 BAR)
… Rebellion.
What court has jurisdiction when an Indonesian crew murders the Filipino captain on board a vessel of Russian registry while the vessel is anchored outside the breakwaters of the Manila Bay? (2011 BAR)
The Philippine courts exercise jurisdiction even though it was registered under Russian law and the accused was an Indonesian national since the crime was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines.
In 2019, government-sponsored militias in Sudan known as "Janjaweed" conducted a campaign of slaughter, starvation, rape, and kidnapping of a certain racial and ethnic group. An estimated 1,000,000 people were systematically killed and 300,000 families have been displaced.
In August 2024, Maverick, a known leader of Janjaweed, was spotted in Boracay. Maverick was criminally charged for the widespread and systematic attacks directed against the civilian population. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) then issued a warrant of arrest. Maverick challenged the jurisdiction of the RTC to prosecute the offense since none of his actions was committed in the Philippines, and none of the alleged victims is a Filipino citizen. Can Maverick be prosecuted in the Philippines? Explain. (2024 BAR)
Yes, Maverick can be prosecuted in the Philippines under R.A. No. 9851, otherwise known as the “Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity.”
Under the law, the Philippine courts may exercise jurisdiction for crimes againts international humanitarian law, genocide, and other crimes against humanity, if the accused is within the Philippine territory, regardless of the nationalities of the victims or the country where the crimes were actually committed. The law only requires that the accused, regardless of citizenship or residence, is present in the Philippines.
Thus, since Maverick was found in Philippine territory, the RTC may prosecute him even if the crimes were committed outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court.
Ms. M, a Malaysian visiting the Philippines, was about to depart for Hong Kong via an Indonesian-registered commercial vessel. While on board the vessel, which was still docked at the port of Manila, she saw her mortal enemy, Ms. A, an Australian citizen. Ms. A was seated at the front portion of the cabin and was busy using her laptop, with no idea whatsoever that Ms. M was likewise onboard the ship.
Consumed by her anger towards Ms. A, Ms. M stealthily approached the Australian from behind, and then quickly stabbed her neck with a pocketknife, resulting in Ms. A's immediate death. Operatives from the Philippine National Police - Maritime Command arrested Ms. M for the killing of Ms. A and thereafter, intended to charge her under the RPC. Ms. M contended that the provisions of the RPC cannot be applied and enforced against her because both she and the victim are not Filipino nationals, and besides, the alleged crime was committed in an Indonesian-registered vessel.
(a) Is Ms. M's contention against the application of the RPC against her tenable? Explain. (2019, 2015 BAR)
No, the contention of Ms. M against the application of the provisions of RPC is untenable.
Under the Principle of Generality, our penal laws bind all persons who live or sojourn within the Philippine territory regardless of their nationality. In this case, although both the accused and the victim are not Filipino nationals and the crime was committed in a foreign-registered vessel, it was still within the Philippine territory.
Thus, the RPC may apply the provisions of the RPC.
Robin and Rowell are best friends and have been classmates since grade school. When the boys graduated from high school, their parents gifted them with a trip to Amsterdam, all expenses paid. At age 16, this was their first European trip. Thrilled with a sense of freedom, they decided to try what Amsterdam was known for. One night, they scampered out of their hotel room, and went to the De Wallen, better known as the Red-light District of Amsterdam. There, they went to a "coffee shop" which sells only drinks and various items made from opium poppy, cannabis, and marijuana, all of which are legal In Amsterdam. They represented themselves to be of age, and were served, and took shots of, cannabis and marijuana products. They indulged in these products the whole night, even if it was their first time to try them. Before returning to Manila, they bought a dozen lollipops laced with cannabis, as souvenir and “pasalubong” for their friends.
They were accosted at the Manila International Airport and were charged with importation of dangerous drugs under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. They were also charged with use of dangerous drugs after pictures of them in the "coffee shop" in Amsterdam were posted on Facebook, showing them smoking and taking shots of a whole menu of cannabis and marijuana products. Their own captions on their Facebook posts clearly admitted that they were using the dangerous products. The pictures were posted by them through Private Messenger (PM) only for their close friends, but Roccino, the older brother of one of their best friends, was able to get hold of his younger brother's password, and without authority from his brother, accessed his PM and shared Robin and Rowell's Amsterdam photos on Facebook.
Can Robin and Rowell be prosecuted for use of dangerous drugs for their one-night use of these products in Amsterdam? (2018 BAR)
No, Robin and Rowell cannot be prosecuted for use of dangerous drugs for their one-night use of these products in Amsterdam.
Under the Principle of Territoriality, our penal laws are only enforceable within the Philippine territory. In this case, the use of dangerous drugs was committed in Amsterdam which is not within the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines.
After drinking one case of San Miguel Beer and taking two plates of “pulutan”, Binoy, a Filipino seaman, stabbed to death Sio My, a Singaporean seaman, aboard M/V “Princess of the Pacific”, an overseas vessel which was sailing in the South China Sea. The vessel, although Panamanian registered, is owned by Lucio Sy, a rich Filipino businessman. When M/V “Princess of the Pacific” reached a Philippine Port at Cebu City, the Captain of the vessel turned over the assailant Binoy to the Philippine authorities. An Information for homicide was filed against Binoy in the RTC of Cebu City. He moved to quash the Information for lack of jurisdiction. If you were the judge, will you grant the motion? Why? (2000 BAR)
Yes, I will grant the motion to quash.
Under the Principle of Territoriality, our penal laws are only enforceable within the Philippine territory. As an exception, the Philippine courts may exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction if the offense was committed in a Philippine-registered ship or airship.
In this case, the crime was committed outside Philippine territory on a Panamanian-registered vessel. The fact that the owner of the vessel was a Filipino national was irrelevant. Since the Philippine courts cannot exercise jurisdiction, the motion to quash should be granted.
Abe, married to Liza, contracted another marriage with Connie in Singapore. Thereafter, Abe and Connie returned to the Philippines and lived as husband and wife in the hometown of Abe in Calamba, Laguna. Can Abe be prosecuted for bigamy? (1994 BAR)
No, Abe cannot be prosecuted for bigamy since the crime was committed outside the Philippine territory.
Under the Principle of Territoriality, our penal laws are only enforceable within the Philippine territory. In this case, the elements of the crime of bigamy was committed outside the Philippine territory. Thus, Abe was not criminally liable.
Catalina, a Spanish national, and Conrado, a Filipino, set up a counterfeiting factory in Shenzhen, China. Their factory produces fake United States (US) Dollars, Japanese Yen, and Philippine Pesos, which are distributed only in Europe and the US. While vacationing in Panglao, Bohol, they were arrested by a special task force of the National Bureau of Investigation on the strength of a warrant of arrest issued by a Philippine court for Counterfeiting and Forgery. Both Catalina and Conrado claimed that the Philippine court does not have jurisdiction over them since they did not commit any criminal act within the territory of the Philippines. Catalina also argued that the Philippine court does not have jurisdiction over her person as she is a Spanish citizen. Are Catalina and Conrado correct? Discuss. (2023 BAR)
No, Catalina and Conrado are not correct.
Under the Principle of Territoriality, our penal laws are only enforceable within the Philippine territory. However, Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code allows extraterritorial application of our penal laws for counterfeiting currency notes because of its economic impact. Thus, the defense of Catalina and Condrado that they did not commit any criminal act within the territory of the Philippines is untenable.
Additionally, under the Principle of Generality, our penal laws are applicable against all persons who live or sojourn in our territory, regardless of citizenship. Thus, Catalina cannot use her citizenship to evade criminal liability.
Assume that you are a member of the legal staff of Senator Salcedo who wants to file a bill about imprisonment at the National Penitentiary in Muntinlupa. He wants to make the State prison a revenue earner for the country through a law providing for premium accommodations for prisoners (other than those under maximum security status) whose wives are allowed conjugal weekend visits, and for those who want long-term premium accommodations.
For conjugal weekenders, he plans to rent out rooms with hotel-like amenities at rates equivalent to those charged by 4-star hotels; for long-term occupants, he is prepared to offer room and board with special meals in air conditioned single-occupancy rooms, at rates equivalent to those charged by 3-star hotels. What advice will you give the Senator from the point of view of criminal law, taking into account the purpose of imprisonment and considerations of ethics and morality? (2013 BAR)
I will advise Senator Salcedo not to file the bill for being violative of the constitutional right to equal protection.
The power of Congress to enact penal laws is limited by the constitutional provisions such as the equal protection clause. Under the equal protection clause, all persons similarly situated must be treated similarly. Thus, putting premiums in the National Penitentiary promotes inequality among the same class of persons.
What are the constitutional provisions limiting the power of Congress to enact penal laws? (2012 BAR)
The following are the constitutional provisions limiting the power of Congress to enact penal laws:
Due Process Clause
Equal Protection Clause
Constitutional provision against imposition of heavy fines
Constitutional provision against cruel and inhumane punishment
Ex post facto law
Bill of attainder
Distinguish between ex post facto law and bill of attainder. (2015 BAR)
An ex post facto is a penal law which punishes the accused for a crime committed prior to its enactment.
A bill of attainder is a legislative act dispensing the need for a judicial determination of guilt.
AA was arrested for committing a bailable offense and detained in solitary confinement. He was able to post bail after two (2) weeks of defection. During the period of detention, he was not given any food. Such deprivation caused him physically discomfort. What crime, if any, was committed in connection with the solitary confinement and food deprivation of AA? Explain your answer. (2012 BAR)
A violation of Anti-Torture Law was committed.
Anti-Torture Law is committed through food deprivation and solitary confinement which constitute physical and psychological tortures. In this case, the punishment imposed upon AA is not commensurate with the crime he committed.