Valenzona vs. People

For crimes mala prohibita, the prosecution must establish not only the commission of the prohibited act but also the accused's volition or intent to perpetrate that act. A corporate officer's criminal liability under P.D. 957 cannot be based solely on their title; it requires proof of their active participation in or power to prevent the specific violation charged.

ALSGRO Industrial and Development Corporation, with petitioner Felix G. Valenzona as its president, sold subdivision lots to Ricardo Porteo via two Contracts to Sell in March 2003. After Porteo defaulted on payments and sought a refund, he discovered the contracts had not been registered with the Register of Deeds within the 180-day period prescribed by P.D. 957. A criminal complaint was subsequently filed against Valenzona for violating Section 17 of the decree.

• Nature of the Case: The petitioner was charged with violation of Section 17 of P.D. 957 for failing to register Contracts to Sell for subdivision lots.
• The Contracts to Sell: On March 24, 2003, ALSGRO, through petitioner as its president, executed two Contracts to Sell with Ricardo Porteo for two lots in the Bayfair of Margana Subdivision.
• Default and Discovery of Non-Registration: Porteo defaulted on installment payments in September 2003. In January 2006, he verified with the Register of Deeds that the contracts had not been registered, obtaining a certification to that effect.
• Criminal Complaint: Porteo filed a criminal complaint against petitioner, leading to the filing of an Information.
• Defense of Petitioner: Petitioner testified that his functions as president included overseeing the business and acting as signatory, but the specific task of registering contracts was assigned to ALSGRO's Marketing, Documentations, and Processing Department. He denied any direct participation in or knowledge of the non-registration.
• Lower Courts' Findings: Both the RTC and CA found petitioner guilty, reasoning that violations of P.D. 957 are mala prohibita, making criminal intent immaterial, and that Section 39 of the decree holds the corporation's president criminally responsible.

• Lack of Active Participation: Petitioner argued that the prosecution failed to prove his direct and active participation in the non-registration. His conviction was based solely on his position as president, without evidence linking him to the specific omission.
• Misapplication of Mala Prohibita: Petitioner contended that even for mala prohibita crimes, the prosecution must show the accused's volition to commit the prohibited act. The Information charged him with "willfully" failing to register, yet no evidence showed he willfully caused the non-registration.
• Reliance on Precedent: Petitioner cited ABS-CBN v. Gozon, asserting that corporate officers cannot be held criminally liable based on mere membership or title without proof of their active participation in the wrongful act.

• Strict Liability Under the Decree: Respondent, through the Office of the Solicitor General, argued that P.D. 957 explicitly makes the president of a corporation criminally responsible for its violations. Petitioner's admission that he oversaw the business equated to "administration of the business" under Section 39.
• Mala Prohibita Nature: Respondent maintained that violations of P.D. 957 are mala prohibita; thus, good faith and lack of criminal intent are not defenses. The mere commission of the prohibited act suffices for conviction.

• Criminal Liability of Corporate Officer: Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner, as corporate president, had the volition and active participation necessary to be held criminally liable for the corporation's failure to register the contracts under P.D. 957.

• Criminal Liability of Corporate Officer: The prosecution failed to prove petitioner's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. While violations of P.D. 957 are mala prohibita, the prosecution must still establish the accused's volition or intent to commit the prohibited act. The evidence only showed the corporation's non-registration and petitioner's title as president. It did not prove he had the duty to register the contracts, actively participated in their non-registration, or had the power to prevent it. His testimony that registration was handled by a separate department was unrebutted. Mere position, without more, is insufficient for criminal liability.

• Mala Prohibita and Volition — Crimes mala prohibita do not require proof of criminal intent (mens rea), but they do require proof of volition—the conscious intent to perform the act prohibited by law. The prosecution must show the accused freely and consciously committed the act constitutive of the crime.
• Criminal Liability of Corporate Officers — For crimes committed by a corporation, the criminal liability of its officers stems from their active participation in the commission of the wrongful act or their power, by virtue of their position, to prevent it. Liability cannot be based solely on one's corporate title; a nexus between the officer's functions and the specific violation must be proven.

• "To hold an offender liable for an offense that is malum prohibitum, it is sufficient that there is a conscious intent to perpetrate the act prohibited by the special law, for the essence of mala prohibita is voluntariness in the commission of the act constitutive the crime."
• "The criminal liability of a corporation's officers or employees stems from their active participation in the commission of the wrongful act... Mere membership in the Board or being President per se does not mean knowledge, approval, and participation in the act alleged as criminal. There must be a showing of active participation, not simply a constructive one." (Citing ABS-CBN v. Gozon)

• ABS-CBN v. Gozon, 755 Phil. 709 (2015) — Cited as controlling precedent establishing that corporate officers' criminal liability requires proof of active participation in the wrongful act, not merely their position.
• Apurado v. People, G.R. No. 247419, August 22, 2022 — Distinguished; in Apurado, the corporate president was directly involved in selling lots without a license, establishing her volition. Here, no such direct participation was shown.
• Cabral v. Uy, 624 Phil. 402 (2010) — Followed for the principle that violations of P.D. 957 are mala prohibita.

• Section 17, P.D. 957 — Requires the seller to register all contracts to sell, deeds of sale, and similar instruments relative to subdivision lots and condominium units with the Register of Deeds.
• Section 39, P.D. 957 — Provides penalties for violations and states that in the case of corporations, "the President, Manager or Administrator or the person who has charge of the administration of the business shall be criminally responsible."

Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, Justice Rodil V. Zalameda, Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, and Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr. (Note: The decision lists Inting, Gaerlan, Dimaampao, and Singh as concurring.)