Practice question
The prosecution relies on Section 1’s knowledge-based BP22 mode but offers neither proof of the required knowledge nor an established statutory basis for presuming it. It says labeling the offense malum prohibitum alone cures that omission. Which is correct?
- The label does not replace proof of the required knowledge element
- Every regulatory label conclusively proves knowledge
- Knowledge may be deleted by prosecutor preference
- A bounced check automatically erases every evidentiary requirement
- Only the accused must prove all elements
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.