GR No. 209464

Dungo vs People of the Philippines

GR No. 209464          July 1, 2015

Facts:

           The Office of the City Prosecutor filed an Information against Dungo and Sibal before the RTC. The Information accused Dungo and Sibal, in conspiracy with several others, to have willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously assaulted and used personal violence upon Villanueva, a neophyte, as a condition for his admission to the fraternity in which the accused were members. The physical harm resulted to the death of Villanueva, as well as damage and prejudice to the heirs of the victim.

           Based on the circumstantial evidence gathered by the RTC, Dungo and Sibal were adjudged guilty of the violation of RA No. 8049 or the Anti-Hazing Law of 1995. This law has been enacted to regulate hazing and other forms of initiation rites in fraternities, sororities, and other organizations.

           It is in this case that the difference between crimes mala in se and mala prohibita are further discussed by the Supreme Court.

Issue:

            WON violation of Anti-Hazing Act of 1995 a crime mala in se or mala prohibita.

Held:

            The crime of hazing under RA No 8049 is malum prohibitum. The main rationale of this law is to discourage persons or group of persons either comprising a sorority, fraternity, or any association from making this requirement of initiation that has already resulted in specific acts of murder or homicide, serious physical injuries, acts of lasciviousness, and rape, among others.

            As the Supreme Court has discussed in this case, criminal law has long divided crimes into acts wrong in themselves called acts mala in se, and acts which would not be wrong but for the fact that a positive law forbids them, called acts mala prohibita. In acts mala in se, the intent governs while in acts mala prohibita, the intent of the offender is immaterial but the only inquiry is whether there is a law violated.

            It added that a common misconception is that all mala in se crimes are found in the RPC while all mala prohibita crimes are provided by special penal laws. However, there are mala in se crimes under special law such as plunder, and there are mala prohibita crimes under RPC such as technical malversation. The better approach would be to determine the inherent immorality of or vileness of the penalized act.

GR No 195956

ABS-CBN Corporation vs. Gozon

GR No 195956           March 11, 2015

Facts:

            ABS-CBN filed a complaint for copyright infringement under the Intellectual Property Code against GMA-7. The dispute occurred during the news coverage of the homecoming of the Filipino overseas worker who has been kidnapped on 2004.

            During this time, ABS-CBN and GMA-& made their respective broadcast and coverage of the live event. ABS-CBN conducted live audio-video coverage and broadcasted the arrival of Angelo dela Cruz. It allowed Reuters Television Service to air the footages it had taken earlier under a special embargo agreement between ABS-CBN and Reuters.

            However, since GMA-7 was also a subscriber of the Reuters, it also broadcasted the live coverage of Reuters for the event without any knowledge of the existing embargo agreement between the two broadcasting companies. Apparently, ABS-CBN has gained knowledge of the use of its footage by GMA-7 without its authority or permission.

            GMA-7 contended that ABS-CBN’s criminal charges against it could not prosper as there was no intention on their part to use the news coverage of ABS-CBN on its own network. It claimed that copyright infringement is malum in se, that there needs to be an intention to violate the Intellectual Property Code in order to be held criminally liable.

Issue:

            WON violation of Intellectual Property Code is mala in se or mala prohibita.

Held:

            Infringement under the Intellectual Property Code is malum prohibitum. The Intellectual Property Code is a special law. The general rule is that acts punished under a special law are malum prohibitum. Ultimately, if an act is declared malum prohibitum, malice or criminal intent is completely immaterial.

            To clarify, crimes mala in se presuppose that the person who did the felonious act had criminal intent to do so, while crimes mala prohibita do not require knowledge or criminal intent.

            As Intellectual Property Code is a special law, the absence of criminal intent on the part of GMA-7 is immaterial.