THE SUPREME Court (SC) on Thursday said that establishing malicious intent is crucial in prosecuting crimes classified as mala prohibita — offenses considered illegal because they are prohibited by law, but are not necessarily inherently immoral. In an 18-page decision issued on Aug. 30 and made public on Thursday, the SC Third Division overturned the rulings of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA), convicting Felix G. Valenzona, president of ALSGRO Industrial and Development Corporation. Mr. Valenzona was found by lower courts guilty of failing to register contracts to sell subdivision lots within the prescribed period — a violation of Presidential Decree (PD) 957.
Despite PD 957 being categorized as a mala prohibita law, the High Court clarified that the prosecution must still demonstrate that the accused intentionally committed the prohibited act.
“Dispensing with proof of criminal intent for crimes mala prohibita does not, in any way, discharge the prosecution of its burden to show that the prohibited act was done intentionally by the accused,” read part of the ruling penned by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa. “The intent to perpetrate the prohibited act under the special law must nevertheless be shown.”
The SC emphasized the difference between “intent to commit the crime” and “intent to perpetrate the act.” The Court ruled that in mala prohibita offenses, the intent to perpetrate the act must be presented.
The High Tribunal ruled that the responsibility to register contracts rested with the company’s marketing department, and not with Mr. Valenzona as its president, absolving him of criminal intent.
“To hold Valenzona criminally liable, it must also be established that he had the volition or intent to not register or [to] cause the non-registration of the subject contracts,” which the prosecution failed to do, said the SC. — Jomel R. Paguian