Question

Question:

Scenario 1:

Mr. Santos, without any intention to harm others, unknowingly possesses an unlicensed firearm. A concerned citizen reports the matter to the police, and Mr. Santos is subsequently arrested and charged with illegal possession of firearms under the Philippine Firearms Law. In his defense, Mr. Santos argues that he had no knowledge of the requirements to possess the said firearm. He insists that since there was no intent to commit a crime, he should not be held liable. Discuss the application of the principles of mala in se and mala prohibita in Mr. Santos' case, citing relevant provisions of Philippine law.

Scenario 2:

Ms. Gomez, an employee of a telecommunications company, intentionally disables the signal of a rival company in order to gain a competitive advantage. She uses prohibited jamming devices to disrupt the rival company's services. In accordance with the Anti-Competitive Practices Act, Ms. Gomez is charged with engaging in anti-competitive behavior. Explain the distinction between mala in se and mala prohibita offenses, and discuss how this distinction applies to Ms. Gomez's case. Cite relevant provisions of Philippine law to support your answer.