Our Revised Penal Code belongs to the classical school of thought.

[105] The classical theory

posits that a human person is essentially a moral creature with an absolute free will to choose
between good and evil.[106] It asserts that one should only be adjudged or held accountable
for wrongful acts so long as free will appears unimpaired.[107] The basic postulate of the
classical penal system is that humans are rational and calculating beings who guide their actions
with reference to the principles of pleasure and pain.[108] They refrain from criminal acts if
threatened with punishment sufficient to cancel the hope of possible gain or advantage in
committing the crime.[109] Here, criminal liability is thus based on the free will and moral
blame of the actor.[110] The identity of mens rea – defined as a guilty mind, a guilty or
wrongful purpose or criminal intent – is the predominant consideration.[111] Thus, it is not
enough to do what the law prohibits.[112] In order for an intentional felony to exist, it is
necessary that the act be committed by means of dolo or “malice.”[113]

([2012V85] [2/4] ARTEMIO VILLAREAL, PETITIONER, VERSUS PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

RESPONDENT., G.R. No. 151258, 2012 Feb 1, 2nd Division)

105 - Ramon C. Aquino, The Revised Penal Code – Volume One 3 (1961); see People v. Estrada, 389 Phil.
216 (2000); People v. Sandiganbayan, 341 Phil. 503 (1997).

106 - Vicente J. Francisco, The Revised Penal Code: Annotated and Commented – Book One 4 (3rd ed.
1958); see People v. Estrada, supra.

107 - Francisco, supra at 4; People v. Estrada, supra.

108 - Aquino, supra note 105 at 3.

[109] Id.

[110] Guillermo B. Guevara, Penal Sciences and Philippine Criminal Law 6 (1974).

[111] People v. Sandiganbayan, 341 Phil. 503 (1997).

[112] Francisco, supra note 106 at 33.

[113] Id. at 33-34.