Topic
alum prohibitum eception to mens rea
Doctrin e
Bhen a crime is punishable by a special la), intent to commit a crime is not necessary% n mala prohibita, it is sucient that the prohibited act )as intentionally done%
Case No. Case Name
Adm% Ca Case *o% *o% 8 86 6
0ebruary ary - -, 19 1988
A/4DA*&4$ !A&//A, complainant, vs% T4 5*% "A/TAEA$ $% &E5*, !residing 'udge o the $egional Trial Trial Court o o !asay !asay City "ranch 11, respondent respondent
FACTS
This is an administrative complaint, complaint, dated August 6, 1987, fled by the then Commissioner o Customs, Aleander !adilla, against respondent "alta#ar $% &i#on, $TC 'udge, "ranch 11(, !asay City, or rendering a mani ma nie est stly ly err erroneo oneous us deci decisi sio on due, due, at the the very very lea least, st, to gros gross s incompetence incompetence and gross ignorance o the la), in Criminal Case *o% 86+ 11-6+!, entitled .!eople o the !hilippines vs% /o Chi 0ai., acuitting said accused o the o2ense charged, i%e%, smuggling o oreign currency out o the country% country% •
•
The respondent respondent rendered rendered a decision o acuittal involving involving a tourist, /o Chi 0ai, )ho )as caugh caughtt by a custo customs ms guar guard d and and t)o !A03 !A034C5 4C5 ocers on 'uly 9, 1986, )hile on board 0light !$ o the !hilippine Air /ines bound or ong:ong )hile attempting to smuggle oreign currency and oreign echange instruments out o the country ;8 piece ieces< s< am amo ounting ing to =3> ((, (,?9%(7, %(7, in vario rious cur currency denominations% The accused stated that he )as a businessman rom ong:ong ong:ong and that the reason or his coming to the !hilippines )as to invest in business in the !hilippines and also to play in the casino% e also testifed that his business associatesstarted putting their money or the business in a common und, hence, every time anyone o them came to the !hilippines, they )ould declare the money they )ere bringing in, and all declarations )ere handed to and :ept by him@ these currency declarations )ere presented at the trial as ehibits or the deense%
•
•
e also testifed on cross+eamination that the reason he )as going bac: to ong:ong bringing )ith him all the money intended to be invested in the !hilippines )as because o the ear o his group that the .revolution. ta:ing place in anila might become )idespread% The respondent 'udge decided to acuit the accused and allo)ed the release o =3>,% based on the presented evidence )hich, according to him, sho)ed that the accused had no )illul intention to violate the la)%
ISSUES
•
Bhether or not the respondent Fudge is guilty o gross incompetence or gross ignorance o the la) in deciding that criminal intent should be established in order to penali#e the accused or violating 3ec% 6 o Central "an: Circular *o% 96
DECISION
33=4 Bhether or not the respondent Fudge is guilty o gross incompetence or gross ignorance o the la) in rendering the decision in uestion
$AT5 &4C&4*& YES.
The respondent+Fudge has sho)n gross incompetence or gross ignorance o the la) in holding that to convict the accused or violation o Central "an: Circular *o% 96, theprosecution must establish that the accused had the criminal intent to violate the la)% The respondent ought to :no) that proo o malice or deliberate intent ;mens rea< is not essential in o2enses punished by special la)s, )hich are mala prohibita% The respondent ignored the act that most o the C" Currency declarations presented by the deense at the trial )ere declarations belonging to other people )hich could not be utili#ed by the accused to Fustiy his having the oreign echange in his possession% The respondent Fudge again displayed gross incompetence and gross ignorance o the la) in invo:ing the provisions o C" Circular *o% 96 to Fustiy the release o =3> ,% to the accused% There is
nothing in the said C" Circular )hich could be ta:en as authority or the trial court to release the said amount o =%3% Currency to the accused% The story concocted by the accused )as so palpably unbelievable that thefndings o the respondent Fudge )ere obviously contrived to avor the acuittal o the accused, thereby clearly negating his claim that he rendered the decision .in good aith%.
RULING
The court ordered that the $espondent 'udge be &3334& rom the service% All leave and retirement benefts and privileges to )hich he may be entitled )ere oreited )ith preFudice to his being reinstated in any branch o government service, including government+o)ned andGor controlled agencies or corporations%
CONCURRING / DISSENTING OPINION
Teehan:ee, C%'%, Hap, 0ernan, elencio+errera, Iutierre#, 'r%, Cru#, !aras, 0eliciano, Iancayco, "idin, 3armiento Cortes, and IriJo+Auino, ''%, concur% !adilla, *arvasa, ''%, too: no part%
BRIEF DISCUSSION
The group concurs )ith the decision o the 3upreme Court in ruling that the respondent Fudge )as guilty o gross incompetence or gross ignorance o the la)% Dolo is not reuired in crimes punished by a special la)@ it is sucient that the o2ender has the intent to perpetrate the act prohibited by the special la)% The act that the act )as done reely and consciously, irrespective o the motives, constitutes the o2ense% The rationale behind this is because the act is considered inFurious to public )elare, and the doing o prohibited act is the crime itsel% mport and eport o oreign currency )ithout authori#ation rom the Central "an: can be detrimental to the society@ thus, good aith and absence o criminal intent cannot be a valid deense%