PEOPLE vs BAYONA (Criminal Law Review 1)

G.R. No. L-42288             February 16, 1935

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.

CORNELIO BAYONA, defendant-appellant.

Gervasio Diaz for appellant.

Office of the Solicitor-General Hilado for appellee.

FACTS:

This is an appeal from a decision of Judge Braulio Bejasa in the Court of First Instance of Capiz, finding the defendant guilty of a violation of section 416 of the Election Law and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for thirty days and to pay a fine of P50, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.

The facts of the case were culled from the following: The defendant who was a special agent of Philippine Constabulary, contends that he stopped his automobile in front of municipal building of Pilar for the purpose of delivering to Mayor Agdamag a revolver that the defendant had taken that day from one Thomas de Martin, who had no license therefor; that he did not know there was a polling place near where he parked his motor car; that he was called by his friend Jose D. Benliro and alligned his automobile, he did not leave the revolver because there were many people in the road and he might lose it; that he was sixty-three meters from electoral college when the revolver was taken from him by Jose E. Desiderio, a representative of the Secretary of Interior.

ISSUE:

Whether the defendant is liable even without criminal intent.

RULUNG:

Yes, the law which the defendant violated is a statutory provision, and the intent with which he violated it is immaterial. It may be conceded that the defendant did not intend to intimidate any elector or to violate the law in any other way, but when he got out of his automobile and carried his revolver inside of the fence surrounding the polling place, he committed the act complained of, and he committed it willfully. The act prohibited by the Election Law was complete. The intention to intimidate the voters or to interfere otherwise with the election is not made an essential element of the offense. Unless such an offender actually makes use of his revolver, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to prove that he intended to intimidate the voters.

Decision appealed from is affirmed, with the costs against the appellant.