Philippine Bar review · Question

Practice question: Malum In Se and Malum Prohibitum

Multiple Choice Easy Jurisprudence

Practice question

Which description best captures an act malum in se?
  1. An act wrongful in itself rather than wrongful only because of a regulatory prohibition.
  2. Any act mentioned in any special law, without exception.
  3. An act that can never require proof.
  4. An act that is lawful whenever profitable.
  5. Only an act committed outside the Philippines.

Legal references

  • Revised Penal Code, Act No. 3815, specified articles, as amended: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/28/20426; Article 3.
  • Estrada v Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560, November 19, 2001, en banc main decision, plunder as malum in se: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html
  • Dungo v People, G.R. No. 209464, July 1, 2015, main decision, classification distinction (general doctrine, not superseded hazing procedures): https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jul2015/gr_209464_2015.html
  • People v Bayona, G.R. No. 42288, February 16, 1935, main decision, intent to do the prohibited act distinguished from criminal intent (general doctrine, not obsolete election-law details): https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1935/feb1935/gr_42288_1935.html

Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.