TOPICS

1. Crimes malum in se punished under the Revised Penal Code and crimes
malum prohibitum under Special Penal Laws; the distortion of the lines
dividing these two categories of crimes.
a. Whether or not crimes punished under Special Penal Laws are malum
in se or malum prohibitum
2. Constitutionality of Republic Act 9344 Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of
2006 increasing the age of exemption from criminal liability from nine
years of age to fifteen years of age.
a. Whether or not children fifteen years of age or under are incapable of
acting with discernment in the commission of crimes.
3. Constitutionality of Republic Act 9262 Anti-Violence Against Women and
Their Children Act of 2004."
a. Whether or not RA 9262 providing for protection for women alone is
in violation of the equal protection clause under the Constitution with
regard to the absence of protection for men under the same
circumstances.

BACKGROUND for TOPIC 1

Criminal Law is a branch of law which defines crimes, treats of their nature
and provides for their punishment. The Revised Penal Code enacted on January 1,
1932 provides for the crimes of: murder, rape, theft, estafa among others. The
crimes under the Revised Penal Code are those called felonies which requires the
concurrence of the elements of freedom, intelligence and intent. Special Penal
Laws or those passed by the Philippine Commission, Philippines Assembly,
Philippine Legislature, National Assembly, the Congress of the Philippines, and the
Batasang Pambansa are as a general rule provides for crimes that do not require the
existence of intent. The former is called malum in se which are prohibited because
these are inherently evil by nature; the latter is called malum prohibitum which
prohibits certain acts or omissions for public convenience.
In recent years the demarcation line dividing these species of crimes have
become blurred with decisions of the Supreme Court of the Philippines declaring
certain crimes punished by Special Penal Laws as malum in se and not merely
malum prohibitum thereby creating the possibility that those that may be held
liable under these laws may escape prosecution by merely feigning ignorance or
good faith. One such decision of the Supreme Courts deals with the crime of
Plunder under Republic Act 7080 where the Court in Joseph Ejercito Estrada vs
Sandiganbayan and the People of the Philippines declared that the crime of
Plunder requires the existence of criminal intent as it is malum in se.

This work seeks to analyse the discussion, reasoning, and justification of the
High Court in making such judgments and thereafter correlate these judgments
with existing laws and jurisprudence to determine the rationale behind the wisdom
of the Highest Court in the Land.