San Beda University College of Law

Criminal Law I | MHPR

Case Name Padilla v. Dizon
Topic Malum prohibitum as exception to the requirement of mens rea
Case No. | Date AC. No. 3086 | February 23, 1998
Ponente , J.
Gross negligence, gross ignorance, and serious misconduct against Judge Dizon filed by Comissioner of
Customs Alexander Padilla upon the former’s acquittal of an accused who upon all tests of rationality is
Case Summary considered
to be guilty of the charges presented against him. Special laws does not need intent.

When a crime is punishable by a special law, intent to commit a crime is not necessary. In
Doctrine mala prohibita, it is sufficicient that the prohibited act was intentionally done.

RELEVANT FACTS
8/6/87: Complainant Padilla addresses complaint against Respondent Dizon for gross negligence, gross ignorance, and serious
misconduct upon the latter's acquittal of Lo Chi Fai in the criminal case No. 86-10126-P, entitled "People of the Philippines vs.
Lo Chi Fai", offense charged: smuggling of foreign currency out of the country.

10/6/87: Respondent replied, citing years of spotless history as prosecutor and judge to counter complaint.

A judge cannot be held to account or answer, criminally, civilly or administratively, for an erroneousdecision rendered by him
in good faith.

Antecedent Facts on Lo Chi Fai Case:

7/9/86: Lo Chi Fai was apprehended by customs guard and PAFSEFCOM carrying foreign currency and instruments amounting
to US$ 355,349.57 in various currency denominations without any authority provided by law. At the time Lo Chi Fai was
apprehended, he was able to exhibit two currency declarations which he was supposed to have accomplished upon his arrival
in Manila in previous trips, namely, CB Currency Declaration No. 05048, dated May 4, 1986 for US$39,600.00 and Japanese
Yen4,000,000.00, and CB Currency Declaration No. 06346, dated June 29, 1986 for Japanese Yen6,600,000.00.

Currency denominations were: Japanese Yen, Swiss Franc, Australian Dollar, Singapore Dollar, HFL Guilder, French Franc, U.S.
Dollar, English Pound, Malaysian Dollar, Deutsche Mark, Canadian Dollar and Hong Kong Dollar, without any authority as
provided by law.

On trial: Lo Chi Fai testified that he is a businessman from Kowloon, Hong Kong. He came to the Philippines to do business and
play casino. He brought $50,000.00 and 8.5M Yen (4/2/86) which he tried to declare but was refused by Central Bank until he
can provide source. He brought $39,000.00 and 4M Yen (5/4/86)which he declared and then 8.6M Yen (6/28/86) which was
also declared. Said declaration and circumstances were not disclosed to arresting customs officers because accused was not
conversant and English, and he was not asked to disclose as such. Accused confessed that he was leaving the Philippines and
taking the money for fear of the revolution of 2/86 spreading as per advise of his associates.

Respondent-Judge Dizon acquitted Lo Chi Fai on the basis that such act exhibited by the then accused was bereft of intent or
malice.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Judge Dizon committed gross negligence and gross incompetence without good faith upon his judgment acquitting
Lo Chi Fai on the case "People of the Philippines v Lo Chi Fai"
 San Beda University College of Law
Criminal Law I | MHPR
RULING
Yes, Judge Dizon is guilty. Baltazar R. Dizon ignored the fact that the foreign currency and foreign currency instruments found in the
possession of Lo Chi Fai when he was apprehended at the airport and the amounts of such foreign exchange did not correspond to
the foreign currency declarations presented by Lo Chi Fai at the trial, and that these currency declarations were declarations belonging
to other people.

In invoking the provisions of the Central Bank Circular No. 960 to justify the release of US$3,000.00 to Lo Chi Fai, Baltazar R. Dizon
again displayed gross incompetence and gross ignorance of law. There is nothing in the Central Bank Circular which could be taken as
authority for the trial court to release the said amount of US Currency to Lo Chi Fai.

NOTES