Decision 22 G.R. No. 224469 cutting, collecting, or removing of timber or other forest products only when any of these acts is done without lawful authority from the State. In Saguin v. People, 65 the prohibited act of non-remittance of Pag-Ibig contributions is punishable only when this act was done "without lawful cause" or "with fraudulent intent." According to this case law, lawful cause may result from a confusing state of affairs engendered by new legal developments that re-ordered the way things had been previously done. In Saguin, the cause of the confusion was the devolution of some powers in the health sector to the local governments. The devolution was ruled as a "valid justification" constituting the "lawful cause" for the inability of the accused to remit the Pag-Ibig contributions. The devolution gave rise to reasonable doubt as to the existence of the offense's element of lack of lawful cause. This doctrine in Saguin is reiterated in Mata/am v. People. 66 Mata/am affirmed the doctrine that when an act is malum prohibitum, "[i]t is the commission of that act as defined by the law, and not the character or effect thereof, that determines whether or not the provision has been violated." Citing ABS-CBN Corporation v. Gozon, 67 Mata/am clarified what this doctrine entails by distinguishing between the intent requirements of a malum in se felony and a malum prohibitum offense: The general rule is that acts punished under a special law are malum prohibitum. "An act which is declared malum prohibitum, malice or criminal intent is completely immaterial." In contrast, crimes mala in se concern inherently immoral acts: "Implicit in the concept of mala in se is that of mens rea." Mens rea is defined as "the nonphysical element which, combined with the act of the accused, makes up the crime charged. Most frequently it is the criminal intent, or the guilty mind[.]" Crimes mala in se presuppose that the person who did the felonious act had criminal intent to do so, while crimes mala prohibita do not require knowledge or criminal intent: In the case of mala in se it is necessary, to constitute a punishable offense, for the person doing the act to have knowledge of the nature of his act and to have a criminal intent; in the case of mala prollibita, unless such words as "knowingly" and "willfully" are contained in the statute, neither knowledge nor criminal intent is necessary. In other words, a person morally quite innocent and with every intention of being a lawabiding citizen becomes a criminal, and liable to criminal penalties, if he does an act prohibited by these statutes. 65 773 Phil. 614,628 (2015). 783 Phil. 711, 728 (2016): "In Saguin v. People, we have said that non-remittance of Pag-IBIG Fund premiums without lawful cause or with fraudulent intent is' punishable under the penal clause of Section 23 of Presidential Decree No. 1752. However, the petitioners in Saguin were justified in not remitting the premiums on time as the hospital they were working in devolved to the provincial government and there was confusion as to who had the duty to remit." 67 755 Phil. 709, 763-764 (2015). 66