Practice question
A separate statute defines an offense and borrows an RPC penalty name. Explain why this does not automatically turn the offense into an RPC felony, and state the supplementary principle in Article 10.
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.