Practice question
Assume a valid regulatory prohibition is properly classified as malum prohibitum, requires voluntary performance of a specified act but no purpose to cause harm, and has no applicable exception. The accused deliberately performs that act; all elements are proved. The only defense is that the accused wished no harm. Which analysis reflects Bayona’s distinction?
- A harmless purpose always creates an exemption.
- Criminal intent and intent to perform an act are legally identical.
- The prosecution may ignore the act itself.
- Absence of an evil purpose does not necessarily excuse the proved voluntary prohibited act where such purpose is not an element.
- The accused must be convicted even if the act was never performed.
Legal references
- Revised Penal Code, Act No. 3815, specified articles, as amended: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/28/20426; Article 3.
- Estrada v Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560, November 19, 2001, en banc main decision, plunder as malum in se: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html
- Dungo v People, G.R. No. 209464, July 1, 2015, main decision, classification distinction (general doctrine, not superseded hazing procedures): https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jul2015/gr_209464_2015.html
- People v Bayona, G.R. No. 42288, February 16, 1935, main decision, intent to do the prohibited act distinguished from criminal intent (general doctrine, not obsolete election-law details): https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1935/feb1935/gr_42288_1935.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.