Article 10. Offenses not subject to the provisions of this Code. — Offenses which are or in the future may be punishable under special laws are not subject to the provisions of this Code. This Code shall be supplementary to such laws, unless the latter should specially provide the contrary. (Revised Penal Code)
|
|---|
Two clauses
● The article is composed of two clauses. The first provides that offenses which in the future are made punishable under special laws are not subject to the provisions of the RPC, while the second makes the RPC supplementary to such laws. While it seems that the two clauses are contradictory, a sensible interpretation will show that they can perfectly be reconciled.
The first clause should be understood to mean only that the special penal laws are controlling with regard to offenses therein specifically punished. Said clause only restates the elemental rule of statutory construction that special legal provisions prevail over general ones. Lex specialis derogant generali. In fact, the clause can be considered as a superfluity, and could have been eliminated altogether. The second clause contains the soul of the article. The main idea and purpose of the article is embodied in the provision that the "code shall be supplementary" to special laws, unless the latter should specifically provide the contrary. (Ledonga vs. People, G.R. No. 141066. February 17, 2005)
What are special laws?
● They are laws that define and penalize crimes not included in the Revised Penal Code.
● This contention makes it necessary to define "special laws," as that phrase is used in article 7 of the Penal Code. Does this phrase "leyes especiales," as used in the Penal Code (article 7) have the meaning applied to the phrase "special laws," as the same is generally used? x x x It is confidently contended that the phrase "leyes especiales," as used in the Penal Code (article 7) is not used with this general signification: In fact, said phrase may refer not to a special law as above defined, but to a general law. A careful reading of said article 7 clearly indicates that the phrase "leyes especiales" was not used to signify "special laws" in the general signification of that phrase. The article, it will be noted, simply says, in effect, that when a crime is made punishable under some other law than the Penal Code, it (the crime) is not subject to the provisions of said code. (Romualdez vs. Marcelo, G.R. Nos. 165510-33, July 28, 2006)
Instances when the RPC was applied suppletory to special laws:
● The suppletory application of the Revised Penal Code to special laws, by virtue of Article 10 thereof, finds relevance only when the provisions of the special law are silent on a particular matter.
● The RPC shall have supplementary application to the special laws whenever the latter use the nomenclature of penalties in the Code, indicating the intent of Congress to make the Code apply suppletorily to such special laws. (People v. Simon, G.R. No. 93028, July 29, 1994, 234 SCRA 555)
When is the suppletory effect of the RPC on special laws not available?
● The suppletory effect of the Revised Penal Code to special laws, as provided in Article 10 of the former, cannot be invoked where there is (1) a legal or physical impossibility of, or (2) a prohibition in the special law against, such supplementary application. (People v. Simon)
● We are not unaware of cases in the past wherein it was held that, in imposing the penalty for offenses under special laws, the rules on mitigating or aggravating circumstances under the Revised Penal Code cannot and should not be applied. A review of such doctrines as applied in said cases, however, reveals that the reason therefor was because the special laws involved provided their own specific penalties for the offenses punished thereunder, and which penalties were not taken from or with reference to those in the Revised Penal Code. Since the penalties then provided by the special laws concerned did not provide for the minimum, medium or maximum periods, it would consequently be impossible to consider the aforestated modifying circumstances whose main function is to determine the period of the penalty in accordance with the rules in Article 64 of the Code.
● The suppletory application of the Revised Penal Code to special laws, by virtue of Article 10 thereof, finds relevance only when the provisions of the special law are silent on a particular matter.
In the case of People v. Moreno, this Court, before ruling that the subsidiary penalty under Article 39 of the Revised Penal Code may be applied in cases of violations of Act No. 3992 or the Revised Motor Vehicle Law, noted that the special law did not contain any provision that the defendant can be sentenced with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
In the case of People v. Li Wai Cheung, this Court applied the rules on the service of sentences provided in Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code in favor of the accused who was found guilty of multiple violations of RA No. 6425 or The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 considering the lack of similar rules under the special law.
In the case of People v. Chowdury, the Court applied Articles 17, 18 and 19 of the Revised Penal Code to define the words principal, accomplices and accessories under RA No. 8042 or the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 because it was not defined therein although it referred to the same terms in enumerating the persons liable for the crime of illegal recruitment.
● The RPC shall have supplementary application to the special laws whenever the latter use the nomenclature of penalties in the Code, indicating the intent of Congress to make the Code apply suppletorily to such special laws. (People v. Simon, G.R. No. 93028, July 29, 1994, 234 SCRA 555)
When is the suppletory effect of the RPC on special laws not available?
● The suppletory effect of the Revised Penal Code to special laws, as provided in Article 10 of the former, cannot be invoked where there is (1) a legal or physical impossibility of, or (2) a prohibition in the special law against, such supplementary application. (People v. Simon)
● We are not unaware of cases in the past wherein it was held that, in imposing the penalty for offenses under special laws, the rules on mitigating or aggravating circumstances under the Revised Penal Code cannot and should not be applied. A review of such doctrines as applied in said cases, however, reveals that the reason therefor was because the special laws involved provided their own specific penalties for the offenses punished thereunder, and which penalties were not taken from or with reference to those in the Revised Penal Code. Since the penalties then provided by the special laws concerned did not provide for the minimum, medium or maximum periods, it would consequently be impossible to consider the aforestated modifying circumstances whose main function is to determine the period of the penalty in accordance with the rules in Article 64 of the Code.
This is also the rationale for the holding in previous cases that the provisions of the Code on the graduation of penalties by degrees could not be given supplementary application to special laws, since the penalties in the latter were not components of or contemplated in the scale of penalties provided by Article 71 of the former. The suppletory effect of the Revised Penal Code to special laws, as provided in Article 10 of the former, cannot be invoked where there is a legal or physical impossibility of, or a prohibition in the special law against, such supplementary application.
The situation, however, is different where although the offense is defined in and ostensibly punished under a special law, the penalty therefor is actually taken from the Revised Penal Code in its technical nomenclature and, necessarily, with its duration, correlation and legal effects under the system of penalties native to said Code. When, as in this case, the law involved speaks of prision correccional, in its technical sense under the Code, it would consequently be both illogical and absurd to posit otherwise. (People v. Simon)
0 Comments
Post a Comment