IV. Special Penal Laws

IV. SPECIAL PENAL LAWS

Special Penal Laws

• Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act (R.A. No. 10591, secs. 3 and 28–41)
• Anti-Online Sexual Abuse or Exploitation of Children and Anti-Child Sexual Abuse or Exploitation Materials Act
• Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009 (R.A. No. 9995, secs. 3–7)
• Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003
• Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004
• Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
• Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012
• Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation, and Discrimination Act
• Safe Spaces Act
• Act Providing for Stronger Protection Against Rape and Sexual Exploitation and Abuse and Increasing the Age for Determining the Commission of Statutory Rape
• Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act

V. Practical Exercises

Mala Prohibita

Crimes mala prohibita are violations of mere rules of convenience designed to secure a more orderly regulation of the affairs of society.

The term mala prohibita refers generally to acts made criminal by special laws. (Reyes, Book I)

THOSE PUNISHED BY SPECIAL LAWS

The third class of crimes are those defined and penalized by special laws, which include crimes punished by municipal or city ordinances.

When the crime is punished by a special law, intent to commit the crime is not necessary. It is sufficient that the offender has the intent to perpetrate the act prohibited by the special law. (Dela Cruz vs. People, G.R. No. 209387).

Grounds to Justify Failure of Arresting Team to Secure the presence of Three Required Witnesses

Grounds to Justify Failure of Arresting Team to Secure the presence of Two Required Witnesses

• Their attendance was impossible because the place of arrest was a remote area;
• Their safety during the inventory and photograph of the seized drugs was threatened by an immediate retaliatory action of the accused or any person/s acting for and in his/her behalf;
• The elected official themselves were involved in the punishable acts sought to be apprehended;
• Earnest efforts to secure the presence of an elected public official and either a representative of the National Prosecution Service or a representative of the media prove futile through no fault of the arresting officers, who face the threat of being charged with arbitrary detention. Any failure to comply must be justified, and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items must be preserved (RA 9165, Sec. 21(1), as amended by RA 10640); or
• Time constraints and urgency of the antidrug operations, which often rely on tips of confidential assets, prevented the law enforcers from obtaining the presence of the required witnesses even before the offenders could escape. (People v. Quilatan y Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 218107, September 9, 2019.)

The present crime and the previous crime must be "embraced in the same title of this Code."

When one offense is punishable by an ordinance or special law and the other by the RPC, the two offenses are not embraced in the same title of the Code. (Id)

When penalized by a special law

There is no complex crime where one of the offenses is penalized by a special law.

Art. 48 will not apply if one crime is punishable under the RPC, and the other punishable under a Special Penal Law.

Example: Under RA 10591, Sec. 29, when a loose firearm is used in committing murder or homicide, its use is treated as an aggravating circumstance, rather than illegal possession being punished as a distinct offense alongside the killing. Historically, murder or homicide was described as distinct from the crime of Illegal Possession of Unlicensed Firearm, where the firearm was used in perpetuating the killing. Murder and homicide are defined and penalized by the RPC as crimes against persons. They are mala in se because malice or dolo is a necessary ingredient therefor. On the other hand, the offense of illegal possession of firearms is defined and punished by a special penal law. It is a malum prohibitum. In punishing illegal possession of firearms, the criminal intent of the possessor is not taken into account. All that is needed is intent to perpetrate the act prohibited by law, coupled by animus possidendi. However, it must be clearly understood that this animus possidendi is without regard to any other criminal or felonious intent which an accused may have harbored in possessing the firearm. (People vs. Quijada, G.R. Nos. 115008-09)