6. Duty of Courts When Act is Non-punishable or Penalty is Excessive

Duty of Courts When Act is Non-punishable or Penalty is Excessive

Concept

Article 5 of the Revised Penal Code addresses two situations: a court learns of an act it considers proper to repress but which the law does not punish; or strict enforcement of the Code would impose a clearly excessive penalty. In either situation, the court performs its judicial duty and separately brings its concern to the Chief Executive through the Department of Justice. (Art. 5, Revised Penal Code)¹

Governing provisions

For a non-punishable act, Article 5 directs the court to render the proper decision and report the reasons it believes the act should become the subject of penal legislation. For a clearly excessive penalty, it directs the court to submit an appropriate statement, taking into account the degree of malice and the injury caused by the offense, without suspending execution of the sentence. (Art. 5, Revised Penal Code)¹

Requisites / Rules

• Non-punishable act: The court has knowledge of an act it deems proper to repress, but the act is not punishable by law. It must render the proper decision and report its reasons to the Chief Executive through the Department of Justice. (Art. 5, Revised Penal Code)¹
• Clearly excessive penalty: Strict enforcement of the Code would produce a clearly excessive penalty in light of the degree of malice and the injury caused. The court submits a statement through the same channel but does not suspend execution of the sentence. (Art. 5, Revised Penal Code)¹
• Judicial role: The court’s report or statement accompanies, rather than replaces, the decision required of it. Determining whether statutory penalties should be adjusted is primarily a legislative function; courts should not usurp that role. (Art. 5, Revised Penal Code)¹ (Corpuz v. People, G.R. No. 180016, 29 April 2014)²

Distinctions

The first situation concerns an act for which the law supplies no punishment; the court explains why penal legislation may be warranted. The second concerns a penalty imposed under the Code that the court considers clearly excessive; its statement does not halt the sentence. Neither procedure itself authorizes the court to create a crime or disregard the penalty prescribed by law. (Art. 5, Revised Penal Code)¹ (Corpuz v. People)²

Key doctrines

In Corpuz v. People, the Court emphasized that adjustment of statutory penalties is primarily for the legislature. It also held that a collateral attack on a statute’s constitutionality based on penalty severity is improper; the issue must be directly pleaded and heard. Article 5’s mechanism for communicating concern over severity is distinct from such a challenge. (Corpuz v. People)² (Art. 5, Revised Penal Code)¹

Exceptions

Article 5 provides no exception allowing suspension of a sentence while the court submits its statement on an excessive penalty. A later law favorable to the accused raises a different issue: Hernan v. Sandiganbayan recognized that such legislation may justify modifying a penalty even after conviction or the start of service of sentence. (Art. 5, Revised Penal Code)¹ (Hernan v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 217874, 5 December 2017)³

Bar tip

Identify which Article 5 situation applies, then state both duties: decide the case and communicate through the Department of Justice to the Chief Executive. For an excessive penalty, add that execution of the sentence is not suspended. (Art. 5, Revised Penal Code)¹