FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF

CRIMINAL LAW
CRIMINAL LAW 1
 FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL
LAW

• Schools of Thoughts
• Classical Theory
• Positivist Theory
• Eclectic or Mixed Theory
• Utilitarian Theory
 CESAR BECCARIA

•Father of classical Criminology

- He pioneered the development of systematic understanding of why people
committed a crime.
- The crime problem could be traced not to bad people but to bad laws, that
modern criminal justice system should guarantee all people equal
treatment before a law.
 JEREMY BENTHAM

•The greatest happiness of the greatest number. He referred to his

philosophy of social control “Utilitarianism”.
- Utilitarianism assumes that all human actions are calculated in
accordance with their livelihood of bringing happiness (pleasure) or
unhappiness (pain.)
 THE CLASSICAL THEORY

- believes that behavior of people with regard to their of action is based on

“Hedonism” or the pleasure-pain principle.
- Human beings chouse those actions that give pleasure and avoid those
that bring pain. Moreover, punishment should be assigned to each crime
in a degree that results in more pain than pleasure for those who commit
the forbidden acts.
 CLASSICAL CRIMINOLOGY WITH FOLLOWING
ELEMENTS

1. In every society, people have free will to choose criminal or law solutions
to meet their needs or settle their problems.
2. Criminal solutions may be more attractive than lawful one’s because they
usually require less work for a greater payoff, if Left unsanctioned crime
has greater utility than conformity
 CLASSICAL CRIMINOLOGY WITH FOLLOWING
ELEMENTS

3. person’s choice of criminal solutions may be controlled by his fear of

punishment.
4. The more severe, certain, and swift the punishment, the better able it is to
control criminal behavior.

There no Crime when there’s no Law punishing the same RA 10951

CLASSICAL CRIMINOLOGY
-The classical criminology concept of human as governed by the
doctrine of “free will” and “rational Behavior”

FREE WILL
- Is the capacity of agents to choose between different possible
causes of action unimpeded.
 RATIONAL BEHAVIOR

- Refers to a decision making process that is based in making choices that

result in the optional level of benefits or utility for an individual.
• The basis for deterrence is the idea human are “hedonists” who seek
pleasure and avoid pain, and rational calculations who weigh the costs
and benefits of every action. It ignores the possibility of irrationality and
unconscious desires as motivators.
 POSITIVIST THEORY

One of the two major schools of criminology. In contrast to the

classical school, whish assumes that criminal acts are the product of free
choice and rational calculation, the positivist sees the roots causes of crime
in factors outside the control of the offender.
These are to be identified using empirical methods, in particular the
analysis of statistics.
 The earliest from of positivism, which arose in the late 19 th century,
involved an attempt to correlate criminal behavior with certain physiological
traits. This led to the identification of genetic “Criminal type” - an idea that
is now wholly discredited. Later, psychological positivists used detailed
studies to link personality traits with particular crimes and to identify those
formative experiences (e.g., parental neglect) that might produce a general
predisposition to law – breaking.
 Alternatively, sociological posivists have sought the causes of crime
in factors external to the offender, such as poverty, alienation, high
population density, and exposure to deviant subcultures (e.g., gangs or drug
– takers) one particularly influential approach was that taken by the Chicago
School of the mid-2oth century, which used ecological methods to study the
breakdown of social order in inner – city neighborhoods.
 Other social positivists approaches include Marxist criminology,
which sees crime as an inevitable products of class conflict and the capitalist
system, and critical criminology, which focuses on the role of power elites in
defining what and who is regarded as . Other social positivists approaches
include Marxist criminology, which sees crime as an inevitable products of
class conflict and the capitalist system, and critical criminology, which
focuses on the role of power elites in defining what and who is regarded as
 Positivism in Criminology, on the other hand, links crime to external
or internal influences places placed upon individuals and attributes the
reason people commit crimes to these factors. This school of thought creates
a relationship between criminal behavior and the psychological or
sociological traits of the offender.
 ECLECTIC OR MIXED PHILOSOPHY THEORY

– combines the good features of classical and positivist theories. It is

believed that our Revised Penal Code (RPC) adheres to this theory because
although the code is mainly on classical theory, there are some provisions
that pertain on positivist theory like article 13 (mitigating circumstances).
 UTILITARIAN THEORY

•utilitarianism: what it is, founders, and main principles by CARLA TARDI

updated April 27, 2023 reviewed by ERIC ESTEVES fact checked by
SUZANNE KVILHAUG utilitarianism Investopedia / Jessica Olah
•what is utilitarianism? utilitarianism is a theory of morality that advocates
actions that foster happiness or pleasure and oppose actions that cause
unhappiness or harm. when directed toward making social, economic, or
political decisions, a utilitarian philosophy would aim for the betterment of
society as a whole.
 Utilitarian would say that an action is right if it results in the
happiness of the greatest number of people in a society or a group.
KEY TAKEAWAYS utilitarianism is a theory of morality that
advocates actions that foster happiness and oppose action that unhappiness.
utilitarianism promotes "the greatest amount of good of the greatest number
of people." when used in a sociopolitical construct, utilitarian ethics aims for
the betterment of society as a whole.
 Utilitarianism is a reason-based approach to determining right and
wrong, but it has limitations. utilitarianism does not account for things like
feelings and emotions, culture, or justice.
Understanding utilitarianism is a tradition of ethical philosophy that
is associated with Jeremy Bentham (1747-1832) and John Stuart mill (1806-
1873), two late 18th- and 19th-century British philosophers, economists, and
political thinkers
 Utilitarianism holds that an action is right economist, and political
thinkers. utilitarianism holds that an action is right if it tends to promote
happiness and wrong if it tends to produce sadness, or the reverse of
happiness - not just happiness of the actor but that of everyone affected by it
 At work, you display utilitarianism when you take actions to ensure
that the office is a positive environment for your co-workers to be in, and
then make it so for yourself.
 B. CONSTRUCTION OR INTERPRETATION OF
PENAL LAWS

Penal Laws are strictly construed against the government and

liberally in favor of the accused. The rule that penal statutes should be
strictly construed against the state may be invoked only where the law is
ambiguous and there is doubt as to its interpretation. Where the law is clear
and unambiguous, there is no room for the application of the rule.
In the construction or interpretation of the provisions of the RPC,
Spanish text is controlling, because it was approved by the Philippine
Legislature in its Spanish text.
 EFFECTS OF REPEAL OR AMENDMENT OF
PENAL LAWS

• If the repeal makes the penalty lighter in the new law, the new law shall
applied except when the offender is habitual delinquent or when the new
law is made not applicable to pending action or existing causes of action.
• If the new law imposes a heavier penalty, the law in force at the time of
the commission of the offense shall be applied.
• If the new law totally repeals the existing law so that the act which was
penalized under the old law is no longer punishable, the crime is
obliterated.
 TUATES VS. BERSAMIN-GR. NO. 138962
OCTOBER 04, 2002

FACTS: Petitioners Tuates and de la Paz were convicted by the MTC-Quezon City of
the crime of violation of PD 772, or the reconsideration before the RTC was pending
RA 8368, or An Act Repealing PD NO. 772, entitled Penalizing Squatting and Other
Similar Acts was Enacted. The RTC ruled that only petitioner’s criminal liability was
extinguished by this new law, and their civil liability in connection with the removal
of their illegally constructed house and improvements remained. On further appeal,
the CA sustained the RTC ruling. Thus, the instant petition for review before the SC.
Petitioners argue that the repeal of PD 772 by RA 8368 carries with it the extinction
of both the criminal and civil aspects of the crime and the OSG agrees. Private
respondent argues otherwise, citing RPC 113.
 TUATES VS. BERSAMIN-GR. NO. 138962
OCTOBER 04, 2002

ISSUE: Whether or not express repeal of PD 772 by RA 8368 also

extinguished petitioners’ civil liability ex delicto to arising from conviction
of violation of PD 772?
 TUATES VS. BERSAMIN-GR. NO. 138962
OCTOBER 04, 2002

RULING: Yes, the court ruled that the repeal of PD 772 by RA 8368 is
explicit, categorical, definite and absolute. As such, that was penalized by
PD 772, i.e., squatting ceases to be criminal under RA 8368, and the
previous offenses is obliterated.
 RETROACTIVE EFFECT OF PENAL LAWS

As a general rule, penal laws shall have no retroactive application,

lest they acquire the character of an ex post facto law.
Article 22 of the RPC: Retroactive effect of penal laws. - Penal Laws shall
have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the persons guilty of a felony,
who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62
of this Code, although at the time of the publication of such laws a final
sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving the same.
 PRO REO PRINCIPLE
In dubio pro reo is a Latin adage that translates into French as “ when
in doubt, the judge must rule in favor of the accused. In dubio pro reo, we
also often speak of “ benefit of the doubt “or the fact that “ doubt must
benefit the accused “.
It means that a defendant may not be convicted by the court when
doubts about his or her guilt remain. The rule of lenity is the doctrine that
ambiguity should be resolved in favor of the more lenient punishment.
 PRO REO PRINCIPLE

The doctrine of pro reo advocates that penal laws and laws penal in nature are to be
construed and applied in a way lenient or liberal to the offender, consonant to and consistent with
the constitutional guarantee that an accused shall be presumed innocent until his guilt is
established beyond reasonable doubt.
Following the pro reo doctrine, under Art. 48 of the Revised Penal Code, crimes are
complexed and punished with a single penalty (i.e. that prescribed for the most serious crime and
to be imposed in its maximum period). The rationale being, that the accused who commits two
crimes with single criminal impulse demonstrates lesser perversity than when the crimes are
committed by different acts and several criminal resolutions. However, Art. 48 shall be applied
only when it would bring about the imposition of a penalty lesser than the penalties imposable for
all the component crimes if prosecuted separately instead of being complexed.
C. NULLUM CRIMEN, NULLA POENA SINE LLEGE

There is no criminal liability if the act is not punishable by a particular

provision in penal law or special penal law. There is no crime when there is
no law punishing it.
Article 21 of the Revised Penal Code
“ Penalties that may be imposed. - No felony shall be punishable by
any penalty not prescribed by law prior to its commission.”
 D. MALA INSE AND MALA PROHIBITA

MALA INSE (EVIL IN ITSELF)

A crime or an act that is inherently immoral, such as murder, arson or rape. [Black’s Law
Dictionary, 9th Ed.]
• A crime or an act that is inherently immoral, such as murder, arson, or rape
• Crimes violated against RPC
• Good faith is a defense
• Criminal Intent is Necessary
 D. MALA INSE AND MALA PROHIBITA

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.]
• An act that is considered a crime because it is prohibited by statute, although
the act itself is not necessarily immoral
• Crimes violated against Special Laws
• Good faith is not a defense
• Criminal Intent is not Necessary
 Violations of the Revised Penal Code are ‘generally’ referred to as
malum in se, which literally means, that the act is inherently evil or bad or
per se wrongful. On the other hand, violations of Special Laws are
‘generally’ referred to as malum prohibitum.
 A common misconception is that all mala in se crimes are found in
the Revised Penal Code (RPC), while all mala prohibita crimes are provided
by special penal laws. In reality, however, there may be mala in se crimes
under special laws, such as plunder under R.A. No. 7080, as amended.
Similarly, there may be mala prohibita crimes defined in the RPC, such as
technical malversation.
(Dungo vs. People, 2015)
 ESTRADA VS SANDIGANBAYAN- NOVEMBER 19, 2001
GR NO 148560
FACTS:
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 he be prosecuted under RA 7080 (An
Act Defining and 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” standard in criminal prosecutions; and 3.) it abolishes the element of mens rea in
crimes already punishable under The Revised Penal Code, thus violating the fundamental rights of the accused. The said law allegedly
suffers from vagueness on the terms it uses, particularly: ‘combination’, ‘series’, and ‘unwarranted’. Based on this, the petitioner used
the facial challenge to question the validity of RA 7080.
ISSUES:
1. WON the Plunder Law is unconstitutional for being vague.
2. WON the fact that the Plunder Law requires less evidence for proving the predicate crimes of plunder leads to its
violation of the right of the accused to due process.
3. WON Plunder as defined in RA 7080 is a malum prohibitum, and if so, whether it is within the power of Congress to
classify it as such.
Ruling:
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 previous ruling) that plunder is a heinous offense implies that it is a malum in
se. The legislative declaration in R.A. No. 7659 that plunder is a heinous offense implies that it is a malum in se. For when the acts punished are inherently
immoral or inherently wrong, they are mala in se and it does not matter that such acts are punished in a special law, especially since in the case of plunder the
predicate crimes are mainly mala in se. Indeed, it would be absurd to treat prosecutions for plunder as though they are mere prosecutions for violations of the
Bouncing Check Law (B.P. Blg. 22) or of an ordinance against jaywalking, without regard to the inherent wrongness of the acts.
Petitioner argued that the statute eliminates the requirement of mens rea and that is the reason he claims the statute is void,
petitioner cites the following remarks of Senator Tañada made during the deliberation:

“SENATOR TAÑADA . . . And the evidence that will be required to convict him would not be evidence for each and every
individual criminal act but only evidence sufficient to establish the conspiracy or scheme to commit this crime of plunder.”

Senator Tañada was only saying that where the charge is conspiracy to commit plunder, the prosecution need not prove
each and every criminal act done to further the scheme or conspiracy, it being enough if it proves beyond reasonable doubt
a pattern of overt or ciminal acts indicative of the overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy. As far as the acts constituting the
pattern are concerned, however, the elements of the crime must be proved and the requisite mens rea must be shown.
MENS REA (criminal intent) is essential in offenses which are mala in se while it is not
essential in offenses which are mala prohibita
 PEOPLE VS QUIJADA- JULY 24, 1996
GR Nos 115008-09
Facts:
On December 30, 1992, in a benefit dance held at the Basketball Court of Barangay Tinago, Dauis, Bohol, accused Daniel Quijada being
then armed with a .38 cal. Revolver, suddenly attacked the unarmed victim, Diosdado Iroy, without giving the latter the opportunity to defend
himself. The accused having harbored a grudge against the victim because of because of a fist fight which happened a week prior to the
incident of murder. Quijada shot Iroy, hitting Iroy on his head and causing serious injuries resulted to his death. The firearm used by the
appellant in shooting Diosdado Iroy was not licensed. Per certification issued on April 26,1993, the appellant was not a duly licensed firearm
holder as verified from a consolidated list of licensed firearm holders on the province and was not authorized to carry a firearm outside his
residence.

The trial court found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder under Art. 248 of the RPC and of the crime of
Qualified Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunition under Sec.1 of RA 1866 as ammended.

Issues:
Whether the trial court’s judgement is a violation of the constitutional mandate against double jeopardy

Ruling:
The judgement does not constitute double jeopardy as it talks about offenses under different laws.
Murder is a mala in se while illegal possession of firearm is a malum prohibitum .
-the protection against double jeopardy is only for the same offense (not act).
RULING:
The second paragraph of Section 1 of P.D. No. 1866 does not warrant and support a conclusion that it intended to treat "illegal
possession and resultant killing" (emphasis supplied) "as a single and integrated offense" of illegal possession with homicide
or murder. It does not use the clause as a result or on the occasion of to evince an intention to create a single integrated crime.
By its unequivocal and explicit language, which we quote to be clearly understood:
“If homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, the penalty of death shall be imposed. (emphasis
supplied)”
the crime of either homicide or murder is committed NOT AS A RESULT OR ON THE OCCASION of the violation of
Section 1, but WITH THE USE of an unlicensed firearm, whose possession is penalized therein. There is a world of difference,
which is too obvious, between (a) the commission of homicide or murder as a result or on the occasion of the violation of
Section 1, and (b) the commission of homicide or murder with the use of an unlicensed firearm. In the first, homicide or
murder is not the original purpose or primary objective of the offender, but a secondary event or circumstance either resulting
from or perpetrated on the occasion of the commission of that originally or primarily intended. In the second, the killing,
which requires a mens rea is the primary purpose, and to carry that out effectively the offender uses an unlicensed firearm.
Further Discussion:
It may be loosely said that homicide or murder qualifies the offense
penalized in said Section 1 because it is a circumstance which increases the
penalty. It does not, however, follow that the homicide or murder is absorbed
in the offense; otherwise, an anomalous absurdity results whereby a more
serious crime defined and penalized in the Revised Penal Code is absorbed
by a statutory offense, which is just a malum prohibitum.
(People vs. Tiozon)
 ABS-CBN VS DUAVIT- MARCH 11, 2015
GR NO 195956
Facts:
The controversy arose from GMA-7’s news coverage on the homecoming of OFW and Iraqi militant hostage victim Angelo dela Cruz.
ABS-CBN conducted live audio-video coverage of and broadcasted the arrival of Angelo dela Cruz at the NAIA and the subsequent press
conference. ABS-CBN allowed Reuters to air the footages it had taken earlier under a special embargo agreement. GMA-7 subscribes to
Reuters and it received a live video feed coverage of Angelo dela Cruz’ arrival from them. Thereafter, it carried the live newsfeed in its
program “Flash Report” together with its live broadcast.
Allegedly, GMA 7 did not receive any notice or was not aware that Reuters was airing footages of ABS-CBN. GMA-7’s news control room
staff saw neither the “No Access Philippines” notice nor a notice that the video feed was under embargo in favor of ABS-CBN.
ABS-CBN then filed a complaint for copyright infringement.

Issue:
Whether criminal prosecution for infringements of copyrightable material, such as live rebroadcast, can be negated by good faith

Ruling:
No. Infringement under the Intellectual Property Code is malum prohibitum. The general rule is that acts punished under a special law are
malum prohibitum. “In an act which is malum prohibitum, malice or criminal intent is completely immaterial”. Unless clearly provided in
the law, offenses involving infringement of copyright protections should be considered malum prohibitum. It is the act of infringement, not
the intent, which causes the damage. To require or assume the need to prove intent defeats the purpose of intellectual property protection.
“The general rule is that acts punished under a special law are malum
prohibitum”
 MATALAM VS PEOPLE- APRIL 04, 2016
GR NO 221849-50
Facts:
That sometime in 1997, in Cotabato City, Maguindanao, DATU GUIMID MATALAM, Regional Secretary of the Department of Agrarian
Reform-Autonomous Region for Muslim Mindanao (DAR-ARMM), together with ANSARRY LAWI and NAIMAH B. UNTE, Cashier and Accountant,
respectively, in relation to their official duties, failed and/or refused to remit TWO MILLION FOUR HUNDRED EIGHTEEN THOUSAND FIVE
HUNDRED SEVENTY-SEVEN AND 33/100 PESOS (P2,418,577.33), representing employer's contribution of [DAR Provincial Office]-Maguindanao for
the period of January, 1997 to June 1998, to GSIS, it being due and demandable, without justifiable cause and despite repeated demands made.
Petitioner claimed that Lawi and Unte were the officers involved in the remittance for the GSIS and PAG-IBIG Funds and he’s only duty is to
affix his signature.
Issue:
Whether petitioner Datu Guimid P. Matalam is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of non-remittance of the employer's share of the GSIS and
Pag-IBIG Fund premiums.
Held:
Yes, the act of non-remittance of the employer’s share of the GSIS and Pag-IBIG Fund Premiums is a crime punishable under special penal
laws, mala prohibita. There is no need to provide a proof beyond reasonable doubt, or the Petitioner’s claim to having a little role in the crime
has no bearing. The mere act of non-remittance of GSIS and Pag-IBIG fund Premiums is a crime, no matter what level of involvement or intention
he might have had.
Petitioner’s argument:

Matalam argues that even if the offenses he allegedly committed are mala
prohibita, his guilt must still be proven beyond reasonable doubt. The pieces of
evidence presented in this case create a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. Thus, a
re-evaluation of the evidence is required.
The Court Held:
We cannot accept petitioner's argument that the duty to remit the required amounts falls to
his co-accused. Republic Act No. 8291, Section 52(g) clearly provides that heads of agencies
or branches of government shall be criminally liable for the failure, refusal, or delay in the
payment, turnover, and remittance or delivery of such accounts to the GSIS.
Similarly, the refusal or failure without lawful cause or with fraudulent intent to comply with
the provisions of Republic Act No. 7742, with respect to the collection and remittance of
employee savings as well as the required employer contributions to the Pag-IBIG Fund,
subjects the employer to criminal liabilities such as the payment of a fine, imprisonment, or
both.
The non-remittance of GSIS and Pag-IBIG Fund premiums is malum prohibitum. What the relevant laws
punish is the failure, refusal, or delay without lawful or justifiable cause in remitting or paying the
required contributions or accounts.
In Saguin v. People, we have said that non-remittance of Pag-IBIG Fund premiums without lawful cause
or with fraudulent intent is punishable under the penal clause of Section 23 of Presidential Decree No.
1752. However, the petitioners in Saguin were justified in not remitting the premiums on time as the
hospital they were working in devolved to the provincial government and there was confusion as to who
had the duty to remit.
In this case, however, petitioner failed to prove a justifiable cause for his failure to remit the premiums.
We cannot subscribe to petitioner's defense that the funds for the remittances were not directly credited
to DAR-ARMM but to the account of the Office of the Regional Governor of the ARMM, which had the
obligation to remit to the various line agencies of the ARMM the specific amounts provided to them
Further Discussions:
When an act is malum prohibitum, "[i]t is the commission of that act as defined by the law, and not
the character or effect thereof, that determines whether or not the provision has been violated."

Intent to commit crime and intent to perpetrate the act distinguished:

A person may not have consciously intended to commit a crime; but he did intend to commit an
act, and that act is, by the very nature of things, the crime itself[.]" When an act is prohibited by a
special law, it is considered injurious to public welfare, and the performance of the prohibited act
is the crime itself
 DUNGO & SIBAL VS PEOPLE-JULY 01, 2015
GR NO 209464
Facts:
At around 3:20 am in the morning of January 14, 2006, the victim Marlon Villanueva was brought to the emergency room of
JP Rizal Hospital. The attending physician failed to resuscitate him. Dr. Camarillo, Medico-Legal Officer of the PNP Crime
Laboratory performed an autopsy on the body of Villanueva, he found various external injuries in the head, trunk and
extremities. There were 33 external injuries, with various severity and nature. He concluded that the cause of death was
subdural hemorrhage due to head injury contusion-hematoma. Dr. Camarillo opined that these injuries were hazing-related.
During autopsy, he retrieved two (2) matchsticks from cadaver with the marking of Alpha Phi Omega (APO) Fraternity.
Among the accused were Dungo and Sibal.
Issue:
Whether lack of criminal intent is a valid defense against RA 8049, or the Anti-Hazing Law of 1995. (NO)
Ruling:
Criminal Law has long divided crimes into acts wrong in themselves called acts mala in se; and acts which would not be
wrong but for the fact that positive law forbids them, called acts mala prohibita. This distinction is important with reference
to the intent with which a wrongful act is done. The rule on the subject is that in acts mala in se, the intent (mens rea)
governs; but in acts mala prohibita, the only inquiry is, has the law been violated? When an act is illegal, the intent of the
offender is immaterial. When doing of an act is prohibited by law, it is considered injurious to public welfare, and the doing
of the prohibited act is the crime itself.
Ruling:

A common misconception is that all mala in se crimes are found in the Revised Penal Code, while all mala prohibita
crimes are provided by special penal laws. In reality, however, there may be mala in se crimes under special laws,
such as plunder (RA No. 7080), as amended. Similarly, there may be mala prohibita crimes defined in the RPC, such
as technical malversation.
The better approach to distinguish between mala in se and mala prohibita crimes is the determination of the inherent
immorality or vileness of the penalized act. If the punishable act or omission is immoral in itself, then it is a crime
mala in se; on the contrary, if it is not immoral in itself, but there is a statute prohibiting its commission by reasons
of public policy, then it is mala prohibita. In the final analysis, whether or not a crime involves moral turpitude is
ultimately a question of fact and frequently depends on all the circumstances surrounding the violation of the
statute.
The crime of hazing under RA No. 8049 is malum prohibitum. The act of hazing itself is not inherently immoral, but
the law deems the same to be against public policy and must be prohibited. Accordingly, the existence of criminal
intent is immaterial in the crime of hazing. Also, the defense of good faith cannot be raised in its prosecution.
 MORAL TURPITUDE DISCUSSED

“... whether or not a crime involves moral turpitude is ultimately a question of fact and frequently depends on
all the circumstances surrounding the violation of the statute.” (Dungo vs People)

(Matalam vs People)
Not every criminal act, however, involves moral turpitude. It is for this reason that "as to what crime involves
moral turpitude, is for the Supreme Court to determine." In resolving the foregoing question, the Court is
guided by one of the general rules that crimes mala in se involve moral turpitude, while crimes mala prohibita
do not, the rationale of which was set forth in "Zari v. Flores," to wit:
It (moral turpitude) implies something immoral in itself, regardless of the fact that it is punishable by law or
not. It must not be merely mala prohibita, but the act itself must be inherently immoral. The doing of the act
itself, and not its prohibition by statute fixes the moral turpitude. Moral turpitude does not, however, include
such acts as are not of themselves immoral but whose illegality lies in their being positively prohibited.
 MORAL TURPITUDE DISCUSSED

[These] guidelines (Zari v Flores) nonetheless proved short of providing a

clear-cut solution, for in International Rice Research Institute v. NLRC, the Court
admitted that it cannot always be ascertained whether moral turpitude does or does
not exist by merely classifying a crime as malum in se or as malum prohibitum. There
are crimes which are mala in se and yet but rarely involve moral turpitude and there
are crimes which involve moral turpitude and are mala prohibita only. In the final
analysis, whether or not a crime involves moral turpitude is ultimately a question of
fact and frequently depends on all the circumstances surrounding the violation of the
statue.
(Matalam vs People)
 GARCIA VS CA- MARCH 14, 2006
GR NO 157171
Facts:
On May 11, 1995, within the canvassing period of 1995 senatorial elections, Aquilino Pimentel Jr., was informed that Arsenia
Garcia, along with her co-conspirators, willfully and unlawfully decreased the number of votes the candidate from 6,998 to 1,921
votes. Pimentel filed a complaint against Garcia and her co-conspirators. All the accused were acquitted due to lack of evidence
except for Arsenia who was found guilty of the crime defined under Republic Act 6646, Section 27(b) for decreasing the votes of
Senator Pimentel in the total of 5,034 and in relation to BP Blg. 881.

Issue:
Is a violation of Section 27(b) of Rep. Act No. 6646, classified under mala in se or mala prohibita?
Could good faith and lack of criminal intent be valid defenses?
Ruling:
Section 27(b) of RA No. 6646 provides:
Any member of the board of canvassers who tampers, increases, or decreases the votes received by a candidate in any election or any
member of the board who refuses, after proper verification and hearing, to credit the correct votes or deduct such tampered votes.
Clearly, the acts prohibited in Section 27(b) are mala in se. For otherwise, even errors and mistakes committed due to overwork and
fatigue would be punishable. Intentionally increasing or decreasing the number of votes received by a candidate is inherently
immoral, since it is done with malice and intent to injure another.
Ruling:
Section 27(b) of RA No. 6646 as mala in se:

Criminal intent is presumed to exist on the part of the person who executes an act
which the law punishes, unless the contrary shall appear.Thus, whoever invokes
good faith as a defense has the burden of proving its existence.
During the trial of the case. Petitioner admitted that she was the one who prepared
the COC (Exhibit A-7), though it was not her duty. To our mind, preparing the
COC even if it was not her task, manifests an intention to perpetuate the erroneous
entry in the COC.
 E. ACTUS REUS MENS REA

Philippine follows a legal principle

“actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea”, which means “the
act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is guilty”

FORMULA TO PRODUCE CRIME:

ACTUS REUS (acts performed) + MENS REA (criminal intent) = CRIME
or DELITO
F. Cardinal Principles of Criminal Law (Characteristic of Criminal Law)

1. Generality: This principle explains that criminal law is applicable to all persons living
or sojourning in the Philippines regardless of race, gender, religion and nationality.
As long as you live in the Philippines you are subject to the criminal law. Aliens
are covered because they are also protected by the laws of the Philippines during the time
that they live or stay within the country. However, there are exception to this principle:
Exception: Article 14 Civil Code ‘Penal laws and those public security and safety shall be
obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in the Philippine territory, subject to the principles
of public international law and to treaty stipulations.”
 F. Cardinal Principles of Criminal Law
(Characteristic of Criminal Law)

Treaties and Treaty Stipulation, example

a. Visiting Forces Agreement.
Laws of Preferential Application
a. RA 75. The following are exempt from arrest and imprisonment and whose
goods or chattel are exempt from distrain, seizure and attachment are the following:
1) Public Ministers;
2) Ambassadors; and
3) Domestic Servants of Ambassadors and Public Ministers.
 F. Cardinal Principles of Criminal Law
(Characteristic of Criminal Law)

Exceptions:
A. Persons against whom the case is prosecuted is
- Citizen or inhabitant of the Philippines in the service of an ambassador
or public entered into debt contract prior to its service;
- Domestic servant of an ambassador or public minister which is not
registered with the DFA
- Where the country of the diplomatic representative affected does not
provide similar protection to diplomatic representatives of the Philippines.
 F. Cardinal Principles of Criminal Law
(Characteristic of Criminal Law)

B. Warship Rule. A warship of another country even though docked in the

Philippines is considered as an extension of the territory of their respective
country. The same applies to foreign embassies in the Philippines. Philippine
warship and embassies abroad are deemed extra territories of the
Philippines.
 F. Cardinal Principles of Criminal Law
(Characteristic of Criminal Law)
3. Principles of Public International Law.
The following are exempted:
a. Sovereigns and other chiefs of state
b. Charge d’affaires
c. Ambassadors
d. Ministers plenipotentiary; and
e. Ministers resident
Exception. Doctrine of immunity does not apply where the public official is sued in his
private and personal capacity as an ordinary citizen.
 F. Cardinal Principles of Criminal Law
(Characteristic of Criminal Law)

2. Territoriality: This principle explains that if a crime is committed within

the Philippine Territory then the Philippines can acquire jurisdiction to the
case. However, there are instances where Philippines can acquire jurisdiction
in a case even if the crime is committed outside the country.
Exceptions:
Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code provides exceptions of the territoriality
principle:
1. Should commit an offense while on Philippine ship or airship;
 F. Cardinal Principles of Criminal Law
(Characteristic of Criminal Law)

• Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency not of the Philippine Island or
obligations and securities issued by the Government of the Philippine Islands;
• Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these islands of
the obligations and securities mentioned in the preceding number;
• While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the
exercise of their functions; or
• Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of the
nations, define in the Title One of Book Two of this Code.
 AAA vs BBB
GR No. 212488 | January 11, 2018
Facts: AAA and BBB were married on August 1, 2006 Quezon City. Their union produced two children: CCC was born on March 4,
2007 and DDD on October 1, 2009. BBB started working in Singapore as a chef, where he acquired permanent resident status.
Thereafter, BBB sent little to no financial support to his family. This compelled AAA to fly extra hours and take on additional jobs to
augment her income as a flight attendant. Later on AAA alleged BBB of virtual abandonment, mistreatment of her and their son
CCC, and physical and sexual violence. AAA also added that BBB supposedly started having an affair with a Singaporean women.
Things came to a head on April 19, 2011 when AAA and BBB had a violent altercation at a hotel room in Singapore during her visit
with their kids. As can be gathered from earlier cited Information, despite the claims of varied forms of abuses, the investigating
prosecutor found sufficient basis to charge BBB with causing AAA mental and emotional anguish through his alleged marital
infidelity.
A warrant of arrest and hold departure order were issued but BBB continued to evade arrest. On November 6, 2013, an Entry of
Appearance as Counsel for the Accused With Omnibus Motion to Revive Case, Quash Information, Lift Hold Departure Order and
Warrant of Arrest was filed on behalf of BBB. The RTC granted the motion to quash on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and
thereby dismissed the case. The RTC ruled that since BBB’s acts complained of had occurred in Singapore, said Court enjoys no
jurisdiction over the offense charged, it having transpired outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
 AAA vs BBB
GR No. 212488 | January 11, 2018

ISSUE: Whether or not a complaint for psychological abuse under R.A. No.
9262 may be filed within the Philippines if the illicit relationship is
conducted abroad.
 AAA vs BBB
GR No. 212488 | January 11, 2018
HELD: YES. In Section 7 of R.A. No. 9262, venue undoubtedly pertains to jurisdiction. As
correctly pointed out by AAA, Section 7 provides that the case may be filed where the crime or any
of its elements was committed at the option of the complainant. While the psychological violence as
the means employed by the perpetrator is certainly an indispensable element of the offense, equally
essential also is the element of mental or emotional anguish which is personal to the complainant.
What may be gleaned from Section 7 of R.A. No. 9262 is that the law contemplates that acts
of violence against women and their children may manifest as transitory orcontinuing crimes; Thus,
a person charged with a continuing or transitory crime may be validly tried in any municipality or
territory where the offense was in part committed.We say that even if the alleged extra marital affair
causing the offended wife mental and emotional anguish is committed abroad, the same does not
place a prosecution under R.A. No. 9262 absolutely beyond the reach of Philippine court
 F. Cardinal Principles of Criminal Law
(Characteristic of Criminal Law)
3. Prospectivity: Criminal law can only punish an act committed after its effectivity. It cannot penalize an act
that was not punishable at the time of its commission. It cannot be given retroactive effects unless it is
favorable to the accused who is not a habitual delinquent. [commentaries on criminal law, revised penal code
book one, Maximo p. Amurao, 2013]
Article.21.RPC Penalties that may be imposed – no felony shall be punishable by any penalty not prescribed
by law prior to its commission.
Exception: (a) when favorable to the accused (b) the accused or convict is not a habitual delinquent as defined
in Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code
Article.22.RPC Retroactive effect of penal laws – Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they
favor 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, although at the time of the publication of such laws a final has been pronounced and the
convict is serving the same.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. DERILO, ET AL. G.R.
No. 117818, April 18, 1997
(Regalado, J.)
FACTS: On January 1, 1982 at Sitio Palaspas, Taft, Eastern Samar, Roman Derilo, Isidro Baldimo y
Quillo, Lucas Doños, Alejandro Cofuentes and one John Doe, shot and stabbed Perpetua Adalim
inflicting injuries which caused her death. Of the five accused, only the appellant, Isidro Q. Baldimo
(Baldimo) was apprehended. Baldimo initially pleaded not guilty; however, by the time the court had
finished presenting its evidence, he manifested his intention to withdraw his earlier plea of not guilty
and substitute the same with one of guilty. Consequently, a re-arraignment was ordered and the
appellant’s voluntariness and comprehension of the consequences in making his new plea of guilty.
Once satisfied, the trial convicted him of crime of murder defined and punished under Article 248 of
the Revised Penal Code. The lower court qualified the killing of Perpetua Adalim to murder by
treachery. Considering the evidence presented by the prosecution and the appellant’s belated
admission of guilt, the court sentenced the appellant to suffer the supreme penalty of death and to
indemnify and pay damages to the heirs of the victim
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. DERILO, ET AL. G.R.
No. 117818, April 18, 1997
(Regalado, J.)
Issues:
1.Is a plea of guilty alone sufficient to prove the aggravating circumstance of
pre-meditated approval?
2.Can the penalty of death be imposed considering the conflicting
application of two penal laws?
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. DERILO, ET AL. G.R.
No. 117818, April 18, 1997
(Regalado, J.)
Held:
1.No. When the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, the court shall conduct a searching inquiry into the
voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of his plea and require the prosecution to prove his guilt and
the precise degree culpability. The accuse may also present evidence in his behalf. Hence, since the prosecution failed to
provide evidence proving the guilt of the accused, the appellant’s plead of guilt is not sufficient to prove the aggravating
circumstance of pre-meditated approval.
2.No. Republic Act No. 7659 repealed Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code by imposing a heavier penalty of death for
murder. As a rule, a new law shall be applied prospectively, except where the new law established conditions more lenient
or favorable to the accused. In the case provided, Baldimo was sentenced to death according to the Revised Penal Code
effective at the time the verdict was made; however, the ratification of the 1987 Constitution reduced the sentence for
capital crimes from death to reclusion perpetua. This is an example of the exception to the principle of prospective
application of new laws. Consequently, when Republic Act No. 7659 that imposes death penalty on heinous crimes was
passed on December 1993, such may not be applied on the crime of murder committed in 1982, based on the principle of
prospectivity of penal laws.
 VALEROSO vs. PEOPLE. G.R. No. 164815. February 22, 2008.

FACTS:
Four policemen were directed to serve a warrant of arrest issued by a judge against the accused Sr. Insp. Jerry C. Valeroso in a case for kidnapping with
ransom. Eventually, the team proceeded to the Integrated National Police Central Station at Culiat, Quezon City, where they saw the accuse as he was
about to board a tricycle. They approached Valeroso and put him under arrest, informed him of his constitutional rights, and bodily searched him. Then,
they found tucked in his waist a Charter Arms, bearing Serial Number 52315 with five live ammunition. Accused was then brought to the police station for
questioning and he was charged with the crime of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition under the first paragraph of Section 1 of P.D. No.1866, as
amended. It provides that “the penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon any person who shall
unlawfully manufacture, deal in, acquire, dispose, or possess any firearm, part of firearm, ammunition or machinery, tool or instrument used or intended to
be used in the manufacture of any firearm or ammunition." P.D. No. 1866, as amended, was the governing law at the time petitioner committed the offense
on July 10, 1996. However, R.A. No. 8294 amended P.D. No. 1866 on July 6, 1997, during the pendency of the case with the trial court.
Valeeroso defended that the police barged into his house, who pointed their guns at him and pulled him out of the room. The raiding team tied his hands
and placed him near the faucet (outside the room) then went back inside, searched and ransacked the room. Moments later, an operative came out of the
room and excalimed that they had found a gun. The petitioner says that the seizure of the subject firearm was invalid. The search was conducted after his
arrest and after he was taken out of the room he was occupying. Valeroso insists that he is legally authorized to possess the subject firearm and its
ammunition on the basis of the Memorandum Receipt issued to him by the PNP Narcotics Command. He further claim that the subject firearm and
ammunition should have been excluded as evidence because they were not formally offered by the prosecution in violation of Section 34, Rule 132 of the
Rules of Court.
 VALEROSO vs. PEOPLE. G.R. No. 164815. February 22, 2008.

ISSUE/S: Is the amendment on a penal law applicable to Velaroso’s case

despite it occurring prior to the existence of that amendment?
 VALEROSO vs. PEOPLE. G.R. No. 164815.
February 22, 2008.
RULING: YES. As a general rule, penal laws should not have retroactive application, lest they acquire the
character of an ex post facto law. An exception to this rule, however, is when the law is advantageous to the
accused. According to Mr. Chief Justice Araullo, this is "not as a right" of the offender, "but founded on the
very principles on which the right of the State to punish and the commination of the penalty are based, and
regards it not as an exception based on political considerations, but as a rule founded on principles of strict
justice."
Although an additional fine of P15,000.00 is imposed by R.A. No. 8294, the same is still advantageous to
the accused, considering that the imprisonment is lowered to prision correccional in its maximum period
from reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua under P.D. No. 1866.
Note: Eventually, Valeroso filed a Letter-Appeal, and the Supreme Court resolved to acquit him, pursuant to
the recommendation of the OSG to acquit him on the grounds that the testimonies of the defense were more
credible compared to that of the four policemen.
 G. LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER OF
CONGRESS TO ENACT PENAL LEGISLATION

The 1987 Constitution imposes the following limitations on the power of Congress to enact penal legislation:
1.Due Process and Equal Protection
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied
the equal protection of the laws. (Art. III, Sec. 1)
2.Non-imposition of excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishment.
Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall the death
penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for
it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua. (Art. III, Sec. 19.1)
3.Ex Post Facto Law or Bill of Attainder
No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted. (Art. III, Sec. 2)
 DUE PROCESS

Due process is comprised of two components - substantive due

process which requires the intrinsic validity of the law in interfering with
the rights of the person to his life, liberty, or property and procedural due
process which consists of the two basic rights of notice and hearing, as well
as the guarantee of being heard by an impartial and competent tribunal.
(Cruz, Constitutional Law, 1993 Ed., pp. 102-106)
Ex. (Hildawa U. Minister of Defense, G.R. No. L-67766 (1985], citing
Ong Chang Wing Lu. U.S., 40 Phil. 1049)
 Hildawa U. Minister of Defense, G.R. No. L-67766 (1985], citing Ong
Chang Wing Lu. U.S., 40 Phil. 1049

Facts: Petitioners Isidro T. Hildawa and Ricardo C. Valmonte filed special civil actions seeking the
nullification of an executive/administrative order that authorized these teams to have the authority to kill
suspected criminals without due process.
The petitioners argued that this violated the provisions of the constitution relating to due process, the
presumption of innocence, and protection against self-incrimination.
The respondents, including the Minister of Defense and the Chief of Staff, denied the existence of such an
order and asserted that these special teams were subject to the same laws as other peace officers.
The Supreme Court acknowledged the need for special operation teams to combat criminality but
emphasized that the use of violence and unnecessary force in making arrests is unlawful and violative of
constitutional rights.
The respondents were directed to exercise strict supervision and control over these teams and to report any
death or injury resulting from apprehensions.
 Hildawa U. Minister of Defense, G.R. No. L-67766 (1985],
citing Ong Chang Wing Lu. U.S., 40 Phil. 1049

• Issues:
• Violation of Constitutional Rights: The petitioners argue that authorizing these teams to kill suspected criminals without
due process violates constitutional provisions relating to due process, presumption of innocence, and protection against self-
incrimination. This raises the issue of whether the executive/administrative order granting such authority is constitutional or
not.

• Ruling: The court acknowledged the need for special operation teams to combat criminality but emphasized that the
use of violence and unnecessary force in making arrests is unlawful and violative of constitutional rights[2]. The court
directed the respondents, including the Minister of Defense and the Chief of Staff, to exercise strict supervision and control
over these teams and to report any death or injury resulting from apprehensions[2]. The ruling also specified that no violence
or unnecessary force shall be used in making an arrest and that a person arrested shall not be subject to any greater restraint
than necessary for their detention.
 EQUAL PROTECTION

Equal protection requires that all persons or things similarly situated

should be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities
imposed. Similar subjects, in other words, should not be treated differently,
so as to give undue favor to some and unjustly discriminate against others.
The guarantee means that no person or class of persons shall be denied the
same protection of laws which is enjoyed by other persons or other classes
in like circumstances.
Ex. (City . of Manila v. Hon. Laguio, Jr., 495 Phil. 326)
 City . of Manila v. Hon. Laguio, Jr., 495 Phil.
326
• Facts: The case filed was a Petition for Declaratory Relief with Prayer for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction and/or
Temporary Restraining Order . The case was filed because MTDC argued that the inclusion of motels and inns in the list of
prohibited establishments in Ordinance No. 7783 of the City of Manila is erroneous and unconstitutional. The basis for filing
the case is the belief that motels and inns are not establishments for amusement or entertainment, do not disturb the
community, and do not use women as tools for entertainment

• Issues: WON the Ordinance no. 7783 is constitutional.

• Ruling: Petition is denied and the decision of the Regional Trial Court declaring the Ordinance null and void is
affirmed. The costs are against the petitioners
 EXCESSIVE FINES

The Constitutional prohibition on the imposition of unusual fines applies

only to criminal prosecutions.
For a penalty to be considered obnoxious to the Constitution, it needs to
be more than merely being harsh, excessive, out of proportion, or severe. To come
under the prohibition, the penalty must be flagrantly and plainly oppressive or so
disproportionate to the offense committed as to shock the moral sense of all
reasonable persons as to what is right and proper under the circumstances.
Ex. (Republic v. De La Merced)
 Republic v. De La Merced
• Facts:
The main facts of the legal case involving the Republic of the Philippines and N. Dela Merced & Sons, Inc. are as
follows:

• Dela Merced & Sons, Inc., the owner of Guadalupe Commercial Complex, was found to have operated without
necessary permits and discharged regulated water pollutants without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act
of 2004.

• The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) imposed a fine on Dela Merced & Sons, Inc.
for the violations.

• The Court of Appeals reduced the amount of the fine from ₱3.98 million to ₱2.63 million due to an alleged
unreasonable delay by the authorities.
 Republic v. De La Merced
• Issues:
The main issues raised in the legal case between the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the
Pollution Adjudication Board, and N. Dela Merced & Sons, Inc. include:

• Whether Dela Merced & Sons was denied due process in the imposition of fines for violating
environmental laws, particularly the Clean Water Act of 2004.
• Whether the issuance of a Certificate of Non-Coverage (CNC) exempts Dela Merced & Sons from
compliance with the Clean Water Act.
• Whether the provision on the imposition of fines, specifically Section 28 of the Clean Water Act, is
unconstitutional for being excessive under Section 19(1), Article III of the Constitution.
• Whether the amount of the fine imposed on Dela Merced & Sons was correct, assuming that its
imposition was proper.
 Republic v. De La Merced
• Ruling:
The petition of Dela Merced & Sons was denied, while the petition of the DENR-PAB was granted. Dela Merced & Sons'
argument that the fine imposed on them was unconstitutional for being excessive was rejected by the court. The court also
upheld the imposition of the reduced fine of ₱2.63 million, as determined by the Court of Appeals . The court found that
Dela Merced & Sons had not been denied due process . Furthermore, the court did not rule on the constitutionality of
Section 28 of the Clean Water Act, as it was not the main issue in the case and Dela Merced & Sons failed to show that
the case could not be resolved without resolving the constitutional question.
 CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT

The Constitutional proscription against cruel and unusual

punishment under the Bill of Rights extends only to situations of extreme
corporeal or psychological punishment that strips the individual of his
humanity. The proscription is aimed more the form or character of the
punishment rather than at its severity.
 EX POST FACTO LAW

Congress is prohibited from passing retroactive penal laws that are prejudicial to the accused. Penal laws are those acts
of the legislature which prohibit certain acts and establish penalties for their violations; or those that define crimes, treat of
their nature, and provide for their punishment.
An ex post facto law is one which:
(1) makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law and which was innocent when done, and punishes such an act; 4
(2) aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed;
(3) changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when committed;
(4) alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes conviction upon less or different testimony than the law required at the
time of the commission of the offense;
(5) assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect imposes penalty or deprivation of a right for something which
when done was lawful; and
(6) deprives a person accused of a crime some lawful protection to which he has become entitled, such as the protection of a
former conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty. (In re: Kay Villegas Kami, Inc., 35 SCRA 429, 431)
To give a law retroactive application to the prejudice of
the accused is to make it an ex post facto law

Batas Pambansa Blg. 195 which was approved on March 16, 1982,
amending Section 1l of R.A. No. 3019 by increasing from 10 to 15 years the
period for the prescription of a violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act, may not be given retroactive application to the "crime" which was
committed in January 1976, for it would be prejudicial to the accused. To apply
B.P. Blg. 195 to the accused would make it an ex post facto law for it would after
his situation to his disadvantage by making him criminally liable for a crime that
had already been extinguished under the law existing when it was committed.
Ex. (People v. Sandiganbayan, et al., 21l SCRA 241)
 People v. Sandiganbayan, et al., 21l SCRA 241

• Facts:
• The Sandiganbayan, a special court in the Philippines, granted the private respondent's motion to quash the information for
violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019) on the grounds of the prescription of the crime
charged .
• The petition concerns allegations of a public official, Ceferino S. Paredes Jr., persuading a land inspector to violate
regulations by misrepresenting the disposability of a piece of land.
• Two letter-complaints were filed with the Tanodbayan by Teofilo Gelacio, questioning the issuance of a free patent title to
Governor Paredes for the disputed land.
• The Tanodbayan referred the complaint to the City Fiscal of Butuan City, who conducted an ex-parte preliminary
investigation and recommended the filing of an information in court.
• The Sandiganbayan granted the motion to quash on the ground of prescription of the offense charged, noting that the crime
had prescribed ten years after it was committed.
People v. Sandiganbayan, et al., 21l SCRA
241
• Issues:
The main issues addressed in the document are as follows:

• Prescription of the offense : The private respondent, Paredes, argued that the offense charged had
prescribed, meaning that the time within which legal action could be taken against him had expired. The
Sandiganbayan granted the motion to quash based on the grounds of prescription.

• Retroactive application of the law: The case addresses the amendment of the law regarding the prescription
or extinguishment period for violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The court stated that the
amendment, which increased the period from ten to fifteen years, cannot be retroactively applied to Paredes'
case, as it would be prejudicial to him. This highlights the principle that substantive rights, such as protection
from prosecution under a statute of limitation, should not be taken away retroactively.
People v. Sandiganbayan, et al., 21l SCRA
241
• Ruling:
• The Supreme Court of the Philippines upheld the decision of the Sandiganbayan to grant the motion to
quash the information for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The Supreme Court
agreed with the Sandiganbayan's conclusion that the crime charged had prescribed due to the passage of
time. It noted that the statute of limitations for the offense had expired before the complaint was filed.
The Sandiganbayan's decision was based on the argument that the Lands Inspector, who was allegedly
induced to violate the law, was not charged with a crime, and it would be unfair and unjust to deny the
prescription of the offense to the public official who benefited from the violation. The Supreme Court
also pointed out that the computation of the prescription period was governed by Section 29 of Act No.
3326, as R.A. No. 3019 is a special law, and the amendment increasing the prescription period to 15
years could not be retroactively applied to the offense committed in 1976. Therefore, the Supreme Court
affirmed the resolution of the Sandiganbayan to quash the information and dismissed the case.
To give a law retroactive application to the prejudice of
the accused is to make it an ex post facto law

The penalty of prision mayor medium, or eight years and one day to
10 years, imposed by P.D. No. 818, applies only to swindling by means of
issuing bouncing checks committed on or after October 22, 1985. That
increased penalty does not apply to estafa committed on October 16, 1974
because it would make the decree an ex post facto law. Its retroactive
application is prohibited by Articles 21 and 22 of the R.P.C. and Section 12,
Article IV (now Sec. 22, Art. II, of the 1987 Constitution).
Ex. (People v. Villaraza, 81 SCRA 95, 97)
 People v. Villaraza, 81 SCRA 95, 97
• Facts:
• The case at hand involves the jurisdiction of a city court in estafa (fraud) cases in the Philippines. The accused,
Caesar Puerto, was charged with estafa for issuing bouncing checks . The city court initially took cognizance of the
case, but the prosecution filed a petition to have it elevated to the Court of First Instance or the Circuit Criminal
Court. The Court of First Instance returned the case to the city court, stating that it falls within the concurrent
jurisdiction of both courts and that the city court should try it since it was the first court that took cognizance of the
case. However, the city judge disagreed and directed the re-elevation of the case
• Issues:
• The main issue in this case regarding Presidential Decree No. 818 is whether the penalty imposed by the decree for
estafa committed by means of issuing bouncing checks applies retroactively to offenses committed before its
enactment.
 People v. Villaraza, 81 SCRA 95, 97
• Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled that the case was properly filed with the city court as it has original jurisdiction over it. The estafa
committed by Puerto is punishable under article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, which carries a penalty of arresto mayor
maximum to prision correccional minimum or four months and one day to two years and four months. The increased penalty
of prision mayor medium, as imposed by Presidential Decree No. 818, applies only to swindling by means of issuing
bouncing checks committed on or after October 22, 1975. Since Puerto committed the offense on October 16, 1974, the
increased penalty does not apply to him.

Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Court of First Instance, directing the city court to try the case. The city
court has original jurisdiction over the case since the penalty provided by law does not exceed prision correccional or
imprisonment for not more than six years or a fine not exceeding six thousand pesos . The court also noted that it was not
necessary for the city court to have conducted the preliminary investigation of the case, as the filing of the information by the
fiscal assumes that the requisite preliminary investigation has been conducted.
 BILL OF ATTAINDER

A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment on

individuals without judicial trial. Its essence is the substitution of a
legislative act for judicial determination of guilt.
Ex. (People u. Ferrer, 48 SCRA 382, 395)
 People u. Ferrer, 48 SCRA 382, 395
Facts:
The case was filed in the Court of First Instance of Tarlac by the state against Feliciano Co for violation of section 4 of the Anti-
Subversion Act. Feliciano Co was accused of becoming an officer and/or ranking leader of the Communist Party of the
Philippines, an outlawed and illegal organization aimed at overthrowing the Government of the Philippines. The basis for filing
the case is that Feliciano Co was found to have a prima facie case against him, and there is evidence that he affiliated himself
with a subversive organization.

Issues:
Whether the Act is a bill of attainder, meaning it inflicts punishment without trial, thereby violating the Constitution. The accused
argue that the Act creates a presumption of guilt that cannot be overcome, usurping judicial power
 People u. Ferrer, 48 SCRA 382, 395

Ruling:
The court upheld the validity of the Anti-Subversion Act. Article III, section 1 (11) of the
Constitution states that "No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be enacted.“ A bill of
attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without trial. Its essence is the
substitution of a legislative for a judicial determination of guilt. The constitutional ban
against bills of attainder serves to implement the principle of separation of powers by
confining legislatures to rule-making and thereby forestalling legislative usurpation of the
judicial function.
 GROUP 6

THANK YOU FOR

LISTENING!