SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS OF THE )

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

First Regular Session )
) RECEIVED

SENATE
v BILLS * ? ( l f j D E X
S. B. N o.

Introduced by SENATOR FRANKLIN M. DRILON

AN ACT A D JU S T IN G T H E AM OUNT INVOLVED, VALUE O F PR O PE R T Y

O R DAMAGE ON W H IC H A PENALTY IS BASED, AND T H E FIN E S
U N D E R ACT N O . 3815, AS A M EN D ED , O T H E R W IS E K N O W N AS T H E
R EV ISED PENA L CODE

EXPLANATORY NOTE

In trying to formulate the aims of criminal law, it is im portant to be aware

both of the reasons for making the effort and of the nature of the problem it poses.1

The declaration captures the paradigm our policymakers customarily adopt in

formulating our countrys penal laws, revealing the diverse socio-political aspirations
advocated and considered during the legislative process. Retribution against the
offender, deterrence of criminal behavior, protection of the public, rehabilitation of
the lawbreaker, and restitution to the victim are among the manifold objectives
carefully weighed by Congress in defining criminal acts and determining the
corresponding penalties. The formulation of a sound, fair and effective policy against
criminality involves a delicate balancing act.

In the 2014 case of Lito Corpuz versus People of the Philippines, 2 the Supreme
Court turned the spotlight on the perceived injustice brought about by the range of
penalties that the courts continue to impose on crimes committed today, based on
the am ount of damage measured by the value of money eighty years ago. The
discussion called for the much needed change and updates to archaic laws that were
promulgated decades ago when the political, socio-economic, and cultural settings
were far different from todays conditions. Lest the law run the risk of violating the
constitutional prohibition against cruel and excessive punishm ent, the High Court
urged Congress to wield its power in realigning the law with the goals for its passage.

The Revised Penal Code serves as the bedrock of the Philippine justice system,
upon which the underlying principles and prevailing precepts on our societys
treatm ent of criminality rest. Since its enactm ent in 1930, the law remains virtually
unchanged with only piecemeal amendments incorporated through the years. Eighty
years had inevitably dulled the edge of a once sharp measure.

1 H arvard U niversity P ro fe sso r H enry M. H art Jr. T he A im s o f the C rim inal Law, 23 Law and C onte m p o ra ry
P roblem s 401-441 (S u m m e r 1958). A ccessed a t http://schola rsh ip .la w .d uke .e d U /lcp /vo l2 3 /iss3 /2 /
G .R. No. 180016, 29 A pril 2014.