Malum prohibitum is an act that is made unlawful by virtue of a law.  A simple example is parking along the sidewalk. Nothing illegal about that. But if a city ordinance is passed prohibiting it, then parking there becomes unlawful.  A perfectly innocuous act is now subject to penalty because a law forbids it.

In the case I am to discuss, the petitioner in the Supreme Court questioned his conviction for a malum prohibitum.

He was charged in the trial court with violation of Section 17 of Presidential Decree 957 or the Subdivision and Condominium Buyer's Protective Decree.

Under the said provision, all real property transactions must be registered with the Register of Deeds.

A buyer sued the seller corporation, impleading him as its president, for failure to register the contracts involving the sale of the parcels of realty to him.

Accordingly, being a malum prohibitum, the trial court convicted the petitioner for being the president of the realty corporation. On appeal, the Court of Appeals sustained the conviction. Petitioner thus brought the matter up to the Supreme Court arguing that he could not be convicted merely because he was the president of the real estate corporation.

The Supreme Court, after a review of the circumstances, overturns the conviction. "Here, Valenzona was charged specifically and only — because he was the president of ALSGRO. However, he testified under oath that in the setup in ALSGRO, the function to register the contracts entered into by ALSGRO is with the Marketing, Documentations, and Processing Department.

This testimony has never been sufficiently rebutted. Nonetheless, the consistent defense of Valenzona was countered by the prosecution and rejected by the lower courts on the belief that mere non-registration constitutes the offense since PD 957 is a special law and as such, Valenzona's defenses of good faith and lack of criminal intent cannot be considered.

At this juncture, it is necessary to discuss the nuances of criminal liability for crimes under special laws which are considered mala prohibita.

The Court has already recognized that a violation of P.D. 957 is regarded as malum prohibitum: "…P.D. 957 has been enacted to regulate for the public good the sale of subdivision lots and condominiums. Its Section 5 prohibits such sale without the prior issuance of an HLURB license and punishes those who engage in such selling. The crime is regarded as malum prohibitum since PD 957 is a special law designed to protect the welfare of society and ensure the carrying on of the purposes of civil life."

"It is the commission of that act as defined by law, not its character or effect that determines whether or not its provision has been violated. Malice or criminal intent is immaterial in such a crime. In crimes that are mala prohibita, the forbidden acts might not be inherently immoral. Still they are punished because the law says they are forbidden. With these crimes, the sole issue is whether the law has been violated."

The Court, in People v. Lacerna, explained that "[o]n grounds of public policy and compelled by necessity, courts have always recognized the power of the legislature… to forbid certain acts in a limited class of cases and to make their commission criminal without regard to the intent of the doer."

For this type of offense, there is a recognition that the prohibited act is so injurious to the public welfare that, regardless of the person's intent, it is in itself the consummated crime.

 (To be continued)