Malum in Se v. Malum Prohibitum Flashcards
What are some approaches in dealing with the differences between crimes mala in se v. mala prohibita?
- The general and better approach is to deal with it in the lens of immorality.
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, it is mala prohibita if it is not immoral in itself, but there is:
a) a statute prohibiting its commission;
b) for reasons of public policy.
- 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.
Considering facts and circumstances, the approach of using the actus reus and mens rea also stand as a standard alternative approach.
Differentiate between malum in se v. malum prohibitum.
In malum prohibitum, existence of criminal intent is immaterial.
Example: Hazing
What are general examples of crimes that are mala in se?
General examples of crimes that are mala in se are the crimes described in the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
Examples:
1. Estafa
What are general examples of crimes that are mala prohibita?
General examples of crimes that are mala prohibita are the special penal laws.
Examples:
1. Hazing
2. Illegal Recruitment [RA 8042 (Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995), as amended by RA 10022]
What are specific examples of crimes that are mala in se, although described in a special penal law?
- RA 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Children Act) Sections 5(i) and 5(e) of R.A. 9262 are mala in se, not mala prohibita, even though R.A. 9262 is a special penal law.
The acts punished therein are inherently wrong or depraved, and the language used under the said penal law requires a mental element.
- RA 7080, as amended
Plunder
How are the actus reus and mens rea related in crimes that are mala in se?
Give an example for a specific type of crime.
Being a crime malum in se, there must thus be a concurrence of both actus reus and mens rea to constitute the crime.
For RA 9262, Section 5(i):
1. The actus reus of the offense under Section 5(i) is the willful denial of financial support.
2. The mens rea of the offense under Section 5(i) is the intention to inflict mental or emotional anguish upon the woman.
What are specific examples of crimes that are mala prohibita, although described in the RPC?
Some specific examples of crimes that are mala prohibita, although described in the RPC, are:
1. Technical Malversation
How are the actus reus and mens rea related in crimes that are mala prohibita?
Give an example for a specific type of crime.
Being a crime malum in se, since the existence of criminal intent is immaterial, mens rea need not be proven. The only inquiry is whether the law was violated.
For hazing, intent is not needed. Only the actus reus (external or overt acts or omissions) is needed to be proven.
What are the two types of intent that the Supreme Court emphasized in G.R. No. 248584 (Valenzona v. People)?
Differentiate between ‘intent to commit the crime’ v. ‘intent to perpetrate the act’.
Which between the two needs to be shown for crimes mala prohibita?
The Court thus proceeded to distinguish between ‘intent to commit the crime’ and ‘intent to perpetrate the act’: “[W]hile a person may not have consciously intended to commit a crime regarded as malum prohibitum, he or she may still be held liable if he or she did intend to commit an act that is, by the very nature of things, the crime itself. Thus, for acts that are mala prohibita, the intent to perpetrate the prohibited act under the special law must nevertheless be shown.”
What are some combinations of crimes that have malum in se and malum prohibitum elements?
- Illegal recruitment (malum prohibitum) and estafa (malum in se)
