G.R. No. L-8855; October 22, 1913
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CORNELIA BALLESTEROS, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Cornelia Ballesteros was charged with violating Section 33 of Act No. 1147 for slaughtering a carabao for public consumption without the required permit from the municipal treasurer. She admitted the slaughter but claimed she should not be held criminally liable because Bernabe Aquino, a barrio councilman, had promised to obtain the permit, and she relied on that promise when she authorized him to have the animal slaughtered. Aquino contradicted her testimony, stating she had told him she already had the necessary permit. The trial court found the testimony conflicting and was unable to determine the exact truth of their interactions but convicted Ballesteros.

ISSUE

Whether Cornelia Ballesteros is criminally liable for slaughtering the carabao without a permit, despite her claim of having relied in good faith on Aquino’s promise to secure the permit.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found that Ballesteros failed to establish her defense of good faith. She ordered the slaughter knowing she had no permit and made no effort in good faith to secure one or to verify if Aquino had obtained it before or after the slaughter. The evidence justified the conclusion that she did not make a genuine effort to comply with the law. When unlawful acts are proven, criminal intent is presumed unless rebutted by evidence satisfactorily showing its absence. Ballesteros did not overcome this presumption. The judgment of the lower court was affirmed.