Criminal acts and classifications in the Philippines are usually governed under the Revised Penal Code. These are classified by its nature and by the gravity of their penalties. In the Philippines, criminal acts are other known as mala in se or mala prohibita. It is essential to establish the difference between the two as it would provide the guide for the conviction. Consequently, it helps in the proper application of penalties and legal principles.
Legal Basis
For cases classified under mala in se, they are mostly governed by the Revised Penal Code. On the other hand, cases under mala prohibita are mostly governed by special penal laws. The distinction of both classification impacts the crime’s burden of proof, criminal defense, and sentencing.
Mala In Se
Mala In Se means “for evil in itself” in Latin, wherein its crimes are classified as inherently wrong, regardless of the laws and transcends cultural and legal boundaries. These are rooted in moral and natural law; therefore, the basis for its punishment are moral wrongfulness and the violation of natural law. Examples of crimes qualified as mala in se are murder, rape, theft, homicide, kidnapping, assault, and all other similar crimes that are wrong in itself. The key features of mala in se are that it requires proof of mens rea or the criminal intent, and that mitigating and aggravating circumstances generally apply. It is important for the prosecution to prove the intent to commit the crime beyond reasonable doubt, such as malice aforethought or premeditation. Additionally, defenses that can be used for mala in se cases are justifications through self-defense, and excuses such as insanity and duress.
Mala Prohibita
Mala prohibita on the other hand means “wrong because it is prohibited” in Latin. The criminality of acts under this arise solely from their prohibition by positive law. This means that acts of mala prohibita are not inherently wrong, but are punishable through laws or statues for public welfare. Its punishments are based on public policy and statutory prohibitions, and are typically lighter than mala in se crimes. In relation to this, its important key features are that the criminal intent is irrelevation, the mere commission of the prohibited act is punishable, and that the aggravating and mitigating circumstances are not usually considered. Unlike mala in se, the defenses for mala prohibita revolve around procedural or technical compliance such as valid permits, licenses, and the like. Examples of crimes classified as such are illegal possession of firearms, illegal fishing, traffic violations, and the like.
In the case of Valenzona vs People, Felix Valenzona was a president of a real estate company who was said to have failed to register contracts to sell with a buyer. Although the lower courts convicted that he was liable for the crime – a mala prohibita offense, the supreme court acquitted him. The court ruled that while the violation was indeed mala prohibita, the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was intent to perform the prohibited act. Likewise, the court settled that Valenzona being the president is not enough to establish criminal liability.
Key Differences
It is vital to establish and identify the key differences between mala in se and mala prohibita. This would allow the courts to give proper decisions and sufficient legal consequences. The true distinction lies in the nature of the act. For mala in se, it is inherently immoral; whereas for mala prohibita, the acts are considered criminal due to specific laws prohibiting it. In relation to this, another key difference between the two is the presence of the intent to commit the crime. For mala in se, intent is essential; whereas for mala prohibita, intent is irrelevant.
Defenses Available
Defenses are available for both crimes of mala in se and mala prohibita. For the former, the lack of criminal intent is a valid defense. However, for the former, good faith is generally not a valid defense. Under such classification, the crucial element is the voluntariness or the intent to perform the prohibited act, and not the intent to commit the crime itself.
Penalty
Penalties are also different. For mala in se cases, these are influenced by mitigating or aggravating circumstances, and are governed by the Revised Penal Code principles. The stages stipulated in the RPC, that affect the penalty for mala in se cases are:
- Stages of execution (attempted, frustrated, and consummated)
- Degree of participation (principal, accomplice, accessory)
- Mitigating, aggravating, and justifying circumstances
Moreover, penalties are more severe if the intent to harm is more prominent and reflected through the crime and its stage. In mala prohibita cases, the principles of the revised penal code generally do not apply; unless special laws explicitly provide for them. Penalties are prescribed by specific special laws and there are strict application of penalties.
Summary
| Aspect | Mala In Se | Mala Prohibita |
| Definition | Crimes that are inherently wrong, regardless of law | Crimes that are only prohibited due to laws or statues |
| Mens rea requirement | Required, intent must be proven | Not always required, strict liability possible |
| Examples | Murder, rape, | Illegal fishing, traffic violations |
| Basis of Punishment | Revised Penal Code | Special Penal Laws |
| Key Features | Requires proof of mens rea, mitigating and aggravating circumstances apply | Mens rea is generally irrelevant, mere commissions of the prohibited act is punishable, aggravating and mitigating circumstances are not usually considered |
| Public perception | Universally condemned | Dependent on legislative goals |
