The bigger joke

the act punished therein automatically a malumprohibitum (Malumprohibitum is an act made wrong because there is a law punishing it, even if there is no criminal or evil intent). The act intended to be punished by PD 1727 is, in fact, in the nature of a malum in se (Malum in se is that act which is inherently evil or bad or per se wrongful.).

Ask any criminal law jurist. He will tell you that criminal intent must be present if a special penal law requires that the punished act be committed knowingly and willfully. In other words, in the case of PD 1727 a bomb prank must be shown to have been instigated by a criminal mind, not an idiotic mind.

A woman, a mother of two from Mandaue City, allegedly joked about having a bomb in her bag last Friday during inspection at a mall entrance. Reports said that when the security guard asked her if she was sure, she immediately said that she was just joking.

For sure, if indeed she made that joke, it was a careless, stupid act. But did it arise from a criminal mind? Did the joker maliciously intend to cause panic or terror? Did the joke even cause any damage more than startling an unexpectedly "clueless" security guard?

Bomb jokes are no laughing matter. For sure, slap a fine against anyone making stupid bomb jokes. Pass an ordinance, sign a law that makes sense. But lob PD 1727 against clueless jokers? That's the bigger joke.

I relished my last year in law school while enrolled in review classes. If the first three years were like Alice in Wonderland (going nowhere despite all the running), the law, in all its complexity, suddenly reveals itself as one splendid, sensible,...