Philippine Bar review · Question

Practice question: Malum In Se and Malum Prohibitum

Multiple Choice Easy Jurisprudence

Practice question

Does malum-prohibitum classification dispense with proof that the accused performed the act charged?
  1. Yes, mere reputation suffices
  2. Yes, the act need never occur
  3. No
  4. Yes, a stranger may be convicted for someone else’s act automatically
  5. Yes, only motive matters

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.