MALUM PROHIBITUM AS EXCEPTION TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF MENS REA
9. Oriel Magno vs. Honorable Court of Appeals,
GR. No. 96132, 26 June 1992, 210 SCRA 475
PARAS, J.:
FACTS:
Sometime in April 1983, Petitioner was in the process of putting up a car repair shop, but he did not have
complete equipment that could make his venture workable. He also lacked the funds with which to
purchase the necessary equipment to make such business operational. Thus, petitioner, representing
Ultra Sources International Corporation, approached Corazon Teng, (private complainant) Vice President
of Mancor Industries (hereinafter referred to as Mancor) for his needed car repairs service equipment of
which Mancor was a distributor. Corazon Teng referred Magno to LS Finance and Management
Corporation (LS Finance for brevity) advising its Vice President, Joey Gomez, that Mancor was willing and
able to supply the pieces of equipment needed if LS Finance could accommodate petitioner and provide
him credit facilities.
The arrangement went through on condition that petitioner has to put up a warranty deposit of thirty per
centum (30%) of the total value of the pieces of equipment to be purchased, amounting to P29,750.00.
Since petitioner could not come up with such amount, he requested Joey Gomez on a personal level to
look for a third party who could lend him the equivalent amount of the warranty deposit, however,
unknown to petitioner it was Corazon Teng who advanced the deposit in question, on condition that the
same would be paid as a short term loan at 3% interest. As part of the arrangement, petitioner and LS
Finance entered into a leasing agreement. After documentation was completed, the equipment were
delivered to petitioner who in turn issued a postdated check and gave it to Joey Gomez who unknown to
petitioner delivered it to Corazon Teng. When the check matured, petitioner requested through Joey
Gomez not to deposit the check as he (Magno) was no longer banking with Pacific Bank. The petitioner
issued another set of six (6) postdated checks Two (2) were deposited and cleared while four (4) others
were which were momentarily held by Corazon Teng did not have sufficient funds which became the cause
of the charges.
Subsequently, petitioner could not pay LS Finance the monthly rentals, thus it pulled out the garage
equipments. After joint trial before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 104, the accused-
petitioner was convicted for violations of BP Blg. 22 on the four (4) cases as follows: “x x x finding the
accused appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of offense of violations of B.P. Blg. 22 and sentencing
the accused to imprisonment for one year in each Criminal Case Nos. Q-35693, Q-35695, Q-35696 and to
pay complainant the respective amounts reflected in subject checks”.
ISSUE:
Is the petitioner punishable for violating B.P. Blg. 22 which is a special statutory law, violations of which
are mala prohibita?
HELD:
No. Despite there being no error that the petitioner had violated B.P. Blg. 22, a mala prohibitum law
(which does not look at the intent of the violator), the transaction did not ripen into a purchase, but
remained a lease with rentals being paid for the loaned equipment, which were pulled out by lessor
(Mancor) when the petitioner failed to continue paying, possibly due to economic constraints or
business failure. It was lawful and just that the warranty deposit should not be charged against the
petitioner. The petitioner was a victim of a modus operandi. And, with a willing court system to apply
the full harshness of the special law in question, using a mala prohibita doctrine, the noble objective of
the law is tainted with materialism and opportunism to the highest degree. For all intents and purposes,
the law was devised to safeguard the interest of the banking system and the legitimate public checking
account user. Least should be it used as a means of jeopardizing honest-to-goodness transactions with
some color of “get-rich” scheme to the prejudice of well-meaning businessmen who are the pillars of
society.
RATIONALE:
Under the utilitarian theory, the “protective theory” in criminal law, affirms that the primary function of
punishment is the protective (sic) of society against actual and potential wrongdoers.” Following the
aforecited theory, in petitioner’s stead the “potential wrongdoer,” whose operation could be a menace
to society, should not be glorified by convicting the petitioner.
The appellate courts admittedly relied solely on the rule that cases of mala prohibita cases only question
whether or not the law had been violated, proof of criminal intent not being necessary for the
conviction of an accused.
Note. – Essential requisite of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 is knowledge on the part of the maker
or drawer of the check of the insufficiency of his funds. Mere act of issuing a worthless check is a special
offense punishable by the Anti Bouncing Checks Law and the offense is Malum Prohibitum (People vs.
Grospe, 157 SCRA 154)
