ARTICLE 3 - MALA PROHIBITA

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
CORNELIO BAYONA, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
This is an appeal from a decision of Judge Braulio Bejasa in the Court of First
Instance of Capiz, finding the defendant guilty of a violation of section 416 of
the Election Law and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for thirty days
and to pay a fine of P50, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency,
and to pay the costs.
The defendant, who was a special agent of the Philippine Constabulary,
contends that he stopped his automobile in front of the municipal building of
Pilar for the purpose of delivering to Major Agdamag a revolver that the
defendant had taken that day from one Tomas de Martin, who had no license
therefor; that he did not know there was a polling place near where he parked
his motor car; that he was called by his friend, Jose D. Benliro and aligned his
automobile, he did not leave the revolver because there were many people in
the road and he might lose it; that he was sixty-three meters from the
electoral college when the revolver was taken from him by Jose E. Desiderio,
a representative of the Secretary of the Interior.
ISSUE: W/N the defendant is liable even without criminal intent.
HELD: Yes. The law which the defendant violated is a statutory provision,
and the intent with which he violated it is immaterial. It may be conceded
that the defendant did not intend to intimidate any elector or to violate the
law in any other way. The act prohibited by the Election Law was complete.
The rule is that in acts mala in se there must be a criminal intent, but in those
mala prohibita it is sufficient if the prohibited act was intentionally done.
"Care must be exercised in distinguishing the difference between the intent
to commit the crime and the intent to perpetrate the act. ..." (U.S. vs. Go
Chico, 14 Phil., 128.)