Mala In se v Pala Prohibita
US v Go Chico
Charged with violation of Act No
1696 for displaying material in
connection to the late
insurrection of the Philippine
Islands
Defendant says he should be
aquited for lack of criminal intent
Padilia v Dizon
Customs Comissioner charged
judge of gross incompetence of
the law for acquitting an accused
in a smuggling case
The smuggling case involved a
Chinaman caught trying to
smuggle currency of various
denominations at MAIA
Chinaman was charged under
PD1883-black marketing foreign
exchange
Chinaman said the money was to
be invested in the Philippines but
decided otherwise since people
had just ousted Marcos and he
thought it might become a full on
revolution
Judge aquitted accused since he
found no intent to violate the law
Estrada v Sandiganbayan
Former president Estrada
convicted of Plunder
Defense of Estrada is that he did
not commit the act of plunder
with deliberate or willful intent
Teves v Comelec
Case involves disqualification of a
candidate for the 2007 elections
of Negros Oriental for having
financial interests in a Cock pit in
violation of the anti graft and
Intent was not needed because
the statue is suppose to be a
deterent against the act
The evil sought to be prevented is
connected to the effect, not intent
Mala in Se the question is intent
in Mala Prohibita the question is
has the law been violated?
Mala Prohibita the act itself is the
crime
Lack of Malice or good faith is not
a valid defence in against Central
Bank Circular No.960
Judge looked past the fact that 12
currencies and checks belonging
to others were misdeclared and
believed in the fantastic tale of
defendant contrary to human
experience and behavior
Judge is guilty of gross
incompetence for acquitting the
accused for lack of malice in
violation of a special law which is
mala prohibita
RA 7659 does states that plunder
is a heinus crime and implies that
it is mala in se
If the acts are punished as
inherently immoral or inherently
wrong they are mala in se
Court stated that he could not
have used his official capacity
because under the 1991 LGC it is
not the sandiganbayan who can
issue a permit for cockpits and
not the presiding officer who in
 corrupt practices act
Petitioner was disqualified from
running in the elections in the
grounds of moral turpitude for
having pecuniary interest
Relationship between penal laws and
Revised Penal code
Sanchez v People
Defendant charged with crime of
other acts of child abuse by Hit
his child 3 times in the leg
His acts are not covered by the
RPC but by P.D. No. 603 and RA
7610
People v Saley
Case involves illegal recruits who
sold face tourist Visas to aspiring
OFWs
Appellant was charged for 11
this case would have been Teves
The cockpits licensing
documents all clearly show that it
is Teves wife who is now owner
operator and not Teves
Possessing pecuniary interest
does not involve moral turpitude
because possession of the interest
is not inherently immoral
He is still guilty for possession of
the cockpit but because he was
ignorant of the prohibition which
did not exists up until 1991 as the
old LGC did not list pecuniary
interest in a cockpit as one of the
prohibitions under sec 41.
Court stated that applicable
provisions are RA7610 psycho
and physical abuse or neglect
PD 603 Other acts of neglect,
abuse or cruelty which provides
for anything that hampers the
childs development
Child abuse, cruelty and
exploitation are separately
defined in the act and are
different from one another and
from acts prejudicial to the childs
development
The above acts need not be
proven to have caused prejudice
to the childs development for one
to be charged guilty of them
The Act is not slight physical
injuries because since the victim
was a child she was entitled to the
protection of 7610
Appellants defense of just
referring the victims to travel
agencies does not stand, it was
clear she knew she was dealing
with people seeking employment
 cases of estafa
Labor code art 38->39 violations
for misrepresenting himself as an
authorized recruiter
Ladonga v People
Case involves violation of Bp22
Accused obtained a loans from a
pawnshop secured by a UCPB
checks
The checks however bounced
upon presentation as the account
was deemed closed
They were found guilty but the
wife of accused appealed it
stating she shouldnt be guilty on
account of conspiracy
People V Bustinera
Court involves the theft of a
Daweoo racer Taxi
Appellant was convicted of
qualified theft for taking a motor
vehicle
abroad since she referred them to
recruitment agencies, she is
therefore in violation of the labor
code for illegal recruitment with
out license or authority to do so.
Conviction under labor code for
illegal recruitment does not bar
prosecution for estafa because it
is mala prohibita and Estafa is
mala in se
Accused can therefore be charged
of estafa
1) defrauded another by
abuse of confidence or by
means of deceit and
(2) damage or prejudice
capable of pecuniary
estimation is caused to the
offended party or third
person
The court said the conspiracy can
apply to SPLs
Art 10 of the RPC under the 2nd
clause makes the RPC
supplementary to any SPLs in the
future even if the specific law
prevails over the general law
Accused was acquitted, since
conspiracy is more than mere
presence at the time and place the
crime was committed and must
be established clearly since it was
based on just here mere presence
when she was with her husband
while signing one of the checks
that bounced.
Court stated that since RPC art
310 and anti carnapping law are
statutes that deal with the same
matter they should be compared
if possible with reasonable
construction
Anti-carnapping law specifically

Go-Tan v Tan
Ms.Tan applied for Temporay
protection order under VAWC
against her huband and in-laws
claiming, verbal, psychological
and economic abuse.
Parents in-law of petitioner claim
they are not covered by the TPO
Principles of the RPC applicable to
SPL
People v Velasco
Accused was tagged as shabu
queen of tondo
A buy bust operation was
conducted where officer Godoy
pretended he wanted to buy
Shabu from Velasco and gave her
50php
Accused claims she was washing
her clothes when the police
entered her home asking her to
point out a certain minang, stole
jewelry, ransacked her room and
defined taking of anothers car
with intent to gain without the
others consent, but excepts some
motor vehicles like tractors and
trailer which if they were stolen
would be covered instead by 310
The court stated that because the
elements of carnapping where
present it should be the SPL that
governs
VAWC is intended to be
supplemented by the RPC and
thus the conspiracy provisions
may apply
Thus conspiracy can be applied to
the accused including the in-laws
for having community of design in
causing ejectment from the home,
financial abuse, psycholocial and
physical abuse on petitioner
VAWC states that offender must
have a connection via marriage,
dating, sexual or former marriage,
it does not preclude conspiracy
under the RPC
Case was therefore passed to the
trail court to pass upon the merits
that the in-laws were in
conspiracy
Accused was indeed arrested
inflagrante delicto, the claim of
frame-up cannot stand against
the presumption of regularity, the
testimony of witnesses and its
frequency as an alibi in
entrapment cases
asked for grease money and that
no shabu was found