Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
QUIZ
• Classical theory
• Positivist theory
• Eclectic philosophy
• Utilitarian theory
Under the classical theory, the basis of
criminal liability is human free will to
choose between good and evil. 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. They refrain from criminal acts if
threatened with punishment sufficient to
cancel the hope of possible gain or
advantage in committing the crime.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. ROBERTO ESTRADA
(G.R. NO. 130487, JUNE 19, 2000 )
2. Criminal liability is based on human free 2. Crime is essentially a social and moral
will and the purpose of the penalty is phenomenon and penalty is imposed for self-
retribution. defense.
3. Crime is a juridical entity and the penalty is 3. Basis of criminal responsibility is his
an evil and a means of juridical tutelage. dreadfulness or dangerous state
Eclectic (or mixed) philosophy combines good features
of classical and positivist theories. As contended by
many legal theorists, the classical theory should be
applied to heinous crimes, whereas the positivist
theory should be applied to socio-economic crimes.
The Philippines generally adapts the eclectic
philosophy. The Revised Penal Code belongs mainly
to the classical theory but Philippine penal law is
based on the Spanish penal code and has adopted
features of the positivist theory of criminal law
exemplified by the indeterminate sentence law,
impossible crime, juvenile justice, and probation.
In acquitting the accused from criminal liability under BP
22 for checks that bounced, the Supreme Court, in the case
Oriel Magno vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 96132, June 26,
1992, has invoked the utilitarian theory of criminal law
(protective theory). Consistent with this theory, the mala
prohibita principle punishing an offense regardless of
malice or criminal intent, should not be utilized to apply
the full harshness of the special law where the noble
objective of the law would be tainted with materialism and
opportunism.
“Petitioner could hardly be classified as a menace against whom
the society should be protected. While the gravamen of violation
of B.P. 22 is the issuance of worthless checks that are dishonored
upon their presentment for payment, we should not apply penal
laws mechanically. It is not the letter alone but the spirit of the
law also that gives it life. This is especially so in this case where a
debtor’s criminalization would not serve the ends of justice but in
fact subvert it. Considering that the money value of the two
checks issued by petitioner has already been effectively paid two
years before the informations against him were filed, we find
merit in this petition. We hold that petitioner herein could not be
validly and justly convicted or sentenced for violation of B.P. 22.”
(Teresita Alcantara Vergara vs. People of the Philippines, G.R.
No. 160328, February 04, 2005)
CONSTITUTIONAL
LIMITATIONS
The constitutional limitations on the power of Congress to
enact penal laws are as follows:
(1) Equal protection;
(2) Due process;
(3) Non-imposition of cruel and unusual punishment or
excessive fine;
(4) Ex post facto law; and
(5) Bill of attainder. (2013 Bar Exam)
“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.”
R.A. 9262 does not violate the guaranty of equal protection of the laws. The
Constitution does not require that things which are different in fact be
treated in law as though they were the same. The equal protection clause
does not forbid discrimination as to things that are different. It does not
prohibit legislation which is limited either in the object to which it is
directed or by the territory within which it is to operate. The distinction
between men and women is germane to the purpose of R.A. 9262, which is
to address violence committed against women and children. R.A. 9262
applies equally to all women and children who suffer violence and abuse.
“No person shall be held to answer for a
criminal offense without due process of law.”
3. Case Law
3. Case Law
(EXTRATERRITORIALITY PRINCIPLE)
The provisions of the RPC shall be enforced outside the jurisdiction of
the Philippines against those who:
a. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship
(flag state rule);
b. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency of the Philippines
or obligation and securities issued by the government of the
Philippines;
c. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into the
country of the obligations and securities aforestated;
d. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense
in the exercise of their functions; and
e. Should commit any of the crimes against the national security and
the law of nations
• War vessels and official vessels of heads of states
are extensions of the country’s jurisdiction
wherever it may be located.
Exceptions
Laws shall be given retroactive effect:
(1) If the law is favorable to the accused;
(2) If the law decriminalizes an act
(3) If the law expressly provides retroactivity
Exception to the exception
Even if the law is favorable to the accused, it shall be
given retroactive effect if he is a habitual delinquent.
Illustration: