Practice question
A hypothetical special statute independently defines and punishes an offense but uses the term prision correccional for its penalty. It does not insert the offense into the RPC. A party argues that borrowing the penalty name necessarily makes the offense an RPC felony. Which is correct?
- Borrowing a name automatically relocates the offense into Book Two
- The source of the definition and punishment remains relevant; the borrowed nomenclature alone does not convert it into an RPC offense
- The borrowed term makes the offense unenforceable in every case
- Every Code provision is automatically excluded from any supplementary role
- The prosecutor may choose the source classification privately
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/statutes/acts/act1930/act_3815_1930.html — Revised Penal Code Articles3,5,10 and21: punishable acts and omissions, dolo/culpa, special-law distinction and prior penal legislation.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1994/jul1994/gr_93028_1994.html — People v. Simon, G.R. 93028, July 29, 1994, main decision: source of offense and penalty; borrowing RPC nomenclature does not itself convert a special-law offense into an RPC offense.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_160959_2007.html — Diaz v. Davao Light and Power Co., G.R. 160959, April 3, 2007, main decision: distinction between a felony under the RPC and a special-law crime.
- https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2017/ra_10951_2017.html — RA 10951 section 1, amended Article 9: current light-felony fine threshold, used below the PHP 40,000 boundary.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.