Mala in Se and Mala Prohibita

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 uner the Re!ise Pen"# Coe "n crimes punishe uner speci"# #"ws

%$As to mor"# or"# tr"i tr"itt o& o& th the o' o'ene ner

-n crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code, the moral trait of the oender 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 oender 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 oender" 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 oender 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 oender, the degree of participation of each in the commission of the crime is ta!en into account in imposing the penalty" thus, oenders are classi/ed as principal, accomplice and accessory. -n crimes punished under special laws, the degree of participation of the oenders 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 eects, 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, ecept 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 aairs 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 oender 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 oender is involved in -mala in se-. 0odifying circumstances, the oender1s etent 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