Practice question
A check is forged by a stranger and the accused neither issues it nor participates in a common design. The prosecution relies only on malum-prohibitum classification to dispense with those facts. Is that sound?
- Yes, all account holders are guilty regardless of conduct
- Yes, forgery by another automatically proves the accused’s issuance
- Yes, classification establishes every act
- No
- Yes, participation is never material
Legal references
- BP 22, Sections 1-2, express knowledge and issuance elements: https://lawphil.net/statutes/bataspam/bp1979/bp_22_1979.html
- People v. Bayona, GR 42288, February 16, 1935, general intent distinction only: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1935/feb1935/gr_42288_1935.html
- Ladonga v. People, GR 141066, February 17, 2005, main decision: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_141066_2005.html
- Carlos v. People, GR 277047, April 15, 2026, en banc main decision, BP22 classification and statutory elements: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/18/70562
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.