Article 5.
– Duty of the court in connection with acts which should be repressed
but which are not covered by the law, and in cases of excessive penalties.
Whenever a court has knowledge of any act which it may deem proper to repress
and which is not punishable by law, it shall render the proper decision and shall
report to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, the reasons which
induce the court to believe that said act should be the subject of legislation.
In the same way, the court shall submit to the Chief Executive, through the
Department of Justice, such statements as may be deemed proper, without
suspending the execution of the sentence, when a strict enforcement of the
provisions of this Code would result in the imposition of a clearly excessive penalty,
taking into consideration the degree of malice and the injury caused by the offense.
I. In connection with acts Which Should Be Repressed But Which Are Not
Punishable By Law
First paragraph: Trial of a criminal case requires the ff:
1. The act committed by the accused appears not punishable by any
law;
2. But the court deems it proper to repress such act;
3. In that case, the court must render the proper decision by
dismissing the case and acquitting the accused
4. The judge must then make a report to the Chief Executive,
through the Secretary of Justice, stating the reasons which induce
him to believe that the said act should be made the subject of
penal legislation
Basis of Paragraph 1: Nulllum crimen, nulla poena sine lege
There is no crime if there is no law that punishes the act (no
matter how bad that act may be).
II. In cases of excessive penalties
Second paragraph requires the following:
1. The court of trial finds the accused guilty
2. The penalty provided by law and which the court imposes for
the crime committed appears to be clearly excessive because
a. The accused acted with lesser degree of malice
b. There is no injury or the injury caused is of lesser gravity
3. The court should not suspend the execution of the sentence.
4. The judge should submit a statement to the chief executive,
through the Secretary of Justice, recommending executive
clemency.
Example cases of the accused acting with lesser degree of malice:
People v. Monleon
o Accused maltreats his wife while inebriated. Wife dies.
Since the accused had no intent to kill his wife and her
death may have been hastened by lack of proper medical
care, the punishment of reclusion perpetua appears to be
excessive.
People v. Espino
o Accused steals coconuts for his family’s consumption.
Punishment for the crime was 4 months and 1 day of
arresto mayor to 3 years, 6 months, and 21 days of prison
correccional according to the Revised Penal Code.
Executive clemency recommended for the wife who killed her cruel husband:
People v. Canja
o Battered wife kills her husband and confesses to doing so
Court recommended that the accused is deserving of
executive clemency, not of full pardon but of a
substantial if not radical reduction or commutation of
her life sentence
Executive clemency recommended because of the severity of the penalty of
rape:
People v. Manlapaz
o Accused committed simple rape
The penalty for simple rape was increased from
reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua as a means
to deter rampant cases of rape happening after WWII.
It was recommended that after the accused shall have
served a term of imprisonment consistent with
retributive justice, executive clemency may be
extended to him.
Penalties Are Not Excessive When Intended To Enforce A Public Policy
People v. Estoista
Rampant lawlessness against property, person and even the very
security of the government, directly traceable in large measure to
promiscuous carrying and use of powerful weapons, justify
imprisonment which in normal circumstances might appear
excessive.
People v. Tiu Ua
Congress thought it necessary to repress profiteering with a heavy
fine so that dealers would not take advantage of critical
conditions to make unusual profits
Courts have the duty to apply the penalty provided by law
It is the duty of judicial officers to respect and apply the law, regardless
of their private opinions.
Courts are not concerned with the wisdom, efficacy, or morality of laws.
That questions fall exclusively within the legislature which enacts the
law and the executive who approves or vetoes it.
- The function of the judiciary is to interpret the laws, if not
In disharmony with the constitution, to apply them.
The courts should interpret and apply the laws as they find them on the
books, regardless of the manner in their judgements are executed by the
executive department
Judge has the duty to apply the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court:
If a Judge of a lower court feels that the application of a doctrine by the
SC is against his way of reasoning, he may state his opinion, but he must
first think that it is his duty to apply the law as interpreted by the
Highest Court of the land.
Courts are not the forum to plead for sympathy and pleads for sympathy.
The duty of courts is to apply the law, disregarding their feeling of
sympathy or pity for an accused.
- DURA LEX SED LEX (The law is hard but it is the law)
III. When a strict enforcement of the provisions of this code
Second paragraph of this provision has no application to the offense defined
and penalized by a special law. (People v. Salazar) the reason is that second
par. Specifically mentions “the provisions of this code”
Article 5 may not be invoked for cases of mala prohibita because said article
applies only to acts mala in se. (People v. Quebral) the ruling in this case is
based on the phrase, “taking into consideration the degree of malice.”
