1.

While mere possession, without criminal intent, is sufficient to convict a person for illegal
possession of a firearm, it must still be shown that there was animus possidendi or an intent
to possess on the part of the accused. 11 Such intent to possess is, however, without regard
to any other criminal or felonious intent which the accused may have harbored in possessing
the firearm. Criminal intent here refers to the intention of the accused to commit an offense
with the use of an unlicensed firearm. This is not important in convicting a person under
Presidential Decree No. 1866. Hence, in order that one may be found guilty of a violation of
the decree, it is sufficient that the accused had no authority or license to possess a firearm,
and that he intended to possess the same, even if such possession was made in good faith
and without criminal intent.

2. What possible defenses are available as against a charge for violation of a “special penal
law”? Explain

3. When the crime is punished by a special law, as a rule, intent to commit the crime is not
necessary. It is sufficient that the offender has the intent to perpetrate the act prohibited by
the special law. Intent to commit the crime and intent to perpetrate the act must be
distinguished. A person may not have consciously intended to commit a crime; but he did
intend to commit an act, and that act is, by the very nature of things, the crime itself. In the
first (intent to commit the crime), there must be criminal intent; in the second (intent to
perpetrate the act) it is enough that the prohibited act is done freely and consciously.

4. NO. In a case held by the supreme court that the notion that mala in se are punished entirely
under and by the RPC and mala prohibita are punished under special penal laws is NOT totally
true – and therefore not a distinction as between the two. There are some acts that are punished
by special penal laws but are considered mala in se, like plunder. Similarly, there
may be mala prohibita crimes defined in RPC, such as technical
malversation

5. Specific Intent refers to your state of mind at the time of the commission of the crime.
Specific intent requires not only doing an unlawful act, but the doing of it with an additional
subjective intent or objective. It is not presumed because it is an ingredient or
element of a crime. Hence, the prosecution has the burden of proving
specific intent. For example, the crime of theft is a specific intent crime because not only
must the one intentionally commit an act of taking of another's property, but one must also
act with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of their property.

6. Crimes involving moral turpitude have been defined to be those crimes that
involve conduct that is reckless, evil, and/or morally reprehensible. Specifically,
a crime may be considered a crime involving moral turpitude if it has any of
the following characteristics:
 a) Shocking to the public conscience;
b) Vile or depraved;
c) Contrary to the rules, morality, and duties of society.

There are three main consequences of a conviction of a crime involving moral

turpitude: immigration, professional, and witness credibility.

7. What are 5 characteristics of SPL as distinguished from the RPC

8. All offenses punishable under this RA 3019 shall prescribe in ten years.

Under section 9 of the said Act:

(a) Any public officer or private person committing any of the unlawful acts or omissions
enumerated in Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of this Act shall be punished with imprisonment for not
less than one year nor more than ten years, perpetual disqualification from public office, and
confiscation or forfeiture in favor of the Government of any prohibited interest and
unexplained wealth manifestly out of proportion to his salary and other lawful income.

(b) Any public officer violation any of the provisions of Section 7 of this Act shall be punished
by a fine of not less than one hundred pesos nor more than one thousand pesos, or by
imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment, at the
discretion of the Court.

9. According to the case of Disini vs SAndiganbayan, under the doctrine of Blameless

ignorance the statute of limitations runs only upon discovery of the fact of the invasion of a
right which will support a cause of action. In other words, the courts would decline to apply
the statute of limitations where the plaintiff does not know or has no reasonable means of
knowing the existence of a cause of action."

10. What is the prescriptive period for “cyber libel” as defined under RA 10175

11. Cyber libel’s prescriptive period should still be based on the RPC, which is
one year.