Article 3- Mala in se vs Mala prohibita

People v Bayona (G.R. No. 42288) – Violation of an electoral law

Facts:

On June 5, 1934, while the general elections were being held, Cornelio Bayona had a revolver with him and
was in his automobile on the road in front of the electoral precint no. 4 in the neighborhood of Aranguel, Pilar,
Capiz. He was then called by his friend, Jose D. Benliro. Bayona left his car to approach his friend without
leaving his revolver in his car for the fear that he might lose it because there were a lot of people surrounding
the electoral precint. He was already inside the fences surrounding the polling place when the revolver was
taken from him by Jose Desiderio who was a representative of the Secretary of Interior.

Issue:
Whether or not Cornelio Bayona was guilty of the violation of an electoral law even without an intention of
violating such law (criminal intent)

Held:
YES. Cornelio Bayona was guilty of the violation of an electoral law even without an intention of violating
such law because such act falls under mala prohibita. The rule is that in acts mala prohibita, it is sufficient if
the prohibited act was intentionally done. The law which Bayona violated is an electoral law and a statutory
provision, therefore making the intent in the violation immaterial. It may be noted that he had no intention to
influence in any way the free and voluntary exercise of suffrage and that he had no interest in the elections or
in violating the law in any other way, he just went inside the premises to approach his friend. Nevertheless,
the act prohibited by the electoral law has already been done.

"While it is true that, as a rule and on principles of abstract justice, men are not and should not be held
criminally responsible for acts committed by them without guilty knowledge and criminal or at least evil
intent (Bishop's New Crim. Law, vol. I, sec. 286), the courts have always recognized the power of the
legislature, on grounds of public policy and compelled by necessity, 'the great master of things', to forbid in a
limited class of cases the doing of certain acts, and to make their commission criminal without regard to the
intent of the doer. (U. S. vs. Go Chico, 14 Phil., 128; U. S. vs. Ah Chong, 15 Phil., 488.)