Duty of the Courts in Case of Non-Punishable Act and Excessive Penalty | Felonies | REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK ONE

CRIMINAL LAW: DUTY OF THE COURTS IN CASE OF NON-PUNISHABLE ACT AND EXCESSIVE PENALTY

Overview

The Revised Penal Code (RPC) of the Philippines provides the foundation for the country's criminal laws. Under its framework, the duty of the courts in cases involving non-punishable acts or excessive penalties is to uphold justice, fairness, and equity while remaining faithful to statutory mandates. This involves several key legal principles that safeguard the rights of the accused and ensure that penalties are proportional and in accordance with law.

---

1. Non-Punishable Acts

A non-punishable act is an act that, although committed, does not warrant criminal liability under the RPC or other penal statutes due to specific provisions that exempt or absolve the actor from liability.

Legal Basis

1. Art. 11, Revised Penal Code: Enumerates justifying circumstances, where the actor commits the act but is not criminally liable (e.g., self-defense, defense of relatives, state of necessity).
2. Art. 12, Revised Penal Code: Enumerates exempting circumstances, where criminal liability is negated due to factors like lack of discernment, insanity, or accident.

Duty of the Court

The court must:

1. Determine Applicability of Justifying/Exempting Circumstances:

   • Ascertain whether the act falls under any of the circumstances listed in Articles 11 and 12.
   • Evaluate the existence of sufficient evidence supporting these defenses.
   • Apply the principle of in dubio pro reo (when in doubt, resolve in favor of the accused).

2. Acquit the Accused:

   • If the act is deemed non-punishable under these provisions, the court must render a judgment of acquittal and release the accused.

3. Address Civil Liability:

   • Under Art. 101 of the RPC, civil liability may subsist even when criminal liability is absent. The court must determine whether damages are due to the injured party in cases involving private harm.

Illustrative Cases

• People v. Oanis (G.R. No. 47722): When accused acted under a mistaken belief of lawful authority, the court had to determine whether the act fell under a justifying or exempting circumstance.
• US v. Ah Chong (1910): Highlighted the importance of determining absence of criminal intent in cases of non-punishable acts.

---

2. Excessive Penalty

An excessive penalty arises when the punishment imposed exceeds the limits prescribed by law or violates the constitutional prohibition against cruel, degrading, or inhuman punishment.

Legal Basis

1. Art. 5, Revised Penal Code: Imposes a duty on courts when faced with:
   • Acts not punishable by law.
   • Penalties that are excessive or disproportionate.
2. Constitution of the Philippines, Art. III, Sec. 19: Prohibits cruel, degrading, or inhuman punishment.
3. Principle of Proportionality: Penalties must be commensurate with the nature of the offense and the offender's culpability.

Duty of the Court

1. Rectify Excessive Penalties:

   • The court must ensure that penalties imposed conform to the range set by the law for the offense.
   • If a lower court imposes an excessive penalty, the higher courts must adjust the judgment on appeal or review.

2. Recommend Legislative Adjustment:

   • If the court finds that the penalty prescribed by law is excessive, it must call the matter to the attention of the Chief Executive (President) or Congress.
   • This is in line with Art. 5, RPC, which provides that courts must notify appropriate authorities when they believe a statutory penalty is unduly harsh.

3. Apply Mitigating Circumstances:

   • Courts must consider mitigating circumstances to reduce the penalty when justified (e.g., incomplete self-defense, voluntary surrender, or minority under Art. 13 of the RPC).

Illustrative Case

• People v. Dionisio (G.R. No. L-28866): The Supreme Court reduced the penalty imposed by the lower court to match the proportionality mandated by law.
• Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice (G.R. No. 132601): Highlighted the constitutional prohibition against excessive or cruel punishment.

---

3. Procedural and Practical Considerations

1. Strict Adherence to Procedural Safeguards:

   • Courts must ensure that the rights of the accused are not violated during trial, particularly when addressing issues of excessive penalties or non-punishable acts.

2. Burden of Proof:

   • In cases of justifying or exempting circumstances, the burden of presenting evidence initially lies with the accused.
   • The court must carefully assess the evidence to avoid erroneous application of criminal sanctions.

3. Case-by-Case Determination:

   • Each case must be evaluated based on its specific facts, circumstances, and applicable legal principles. Courts are enjoined to balance legal rigidity with the principles of equity and justice.

4. Promotion of Judicial Prudence:

   • Judges must exercise sound discretion when faced with penalties that may appear unjust or disproportionate, ensuring their decisions are consistent with constitutional and statutory mandates.

---

Conclusion

The duty of the courts in cases involving non-punishable acts or excessive penalties under the Revised Penal Code is multifaceted and rooted in ensuring justice, fairness, and adherence to the rule of law. Courts must:

• Identify and apply justifying or exempting circumstances when applicable.
• Rectify excessive penalties through proper sentencing or legislative recommendations.
• Uphold constitutional safeguards against cruel or disproportionate punishment.

In fulfilling these duties, courts reinforce the balance between the protection of societal interests and the rights of the individual.