Practice question
A person privately wishes harm on another but performs no act of execution, makes no punishable agreement or proposal, and commits no legally punishable omission. A prosecutor asks the court to invent an RPC offense because the wish is reprehensible. What is correct?
- Every immoral wish is automatically an RPC felony
- The court may create a felony by analogy whenever no statute exists
- On the stipulated facts there is no punishable act or omission establishing a felony; moral condemnation does not replace penal legislation
- The person must prove innocence by changing private opinions
- A court may impose any punishment before a law exists
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.