Separate Concurring Opinion 3 G.R. No. 224469 Philippines against the United States. In affirming the conviction, this Court rejected the accused's defense that proof of criminal intent is a pre-requisite for conviction under Act.No. 1696. The Court explained that there are crimes, such as those punishable under Act No. 1696, where the intention of the person who commits the crime is entirely immaterial. The act itself, without regard to the intention of the doer, produces the evil effects sought to be -prevented. The Court then proceeded to distinguish between intent to commit the crime and intent to perpetrate the act, viz: Care must be exercised in distinguishing the difference between the intent to commit the crime and the intent to perpetrate the act. The accused did not consciously intend to commit a crime; but he did intend to commit an act, and that act is, by the very nature of things, the crime itself- intent and all. The wording of the law is such that the intent and the act are inseparable. The act is the crime. The accused intended to put the device in his window. Nothing more is required to commit the crime. In People v. Bayona, 11 this Court was faced with determining whether the accused's intention for carrying a firearm within 50 meters from the polling place is material to ruling on the propriety of his conviction. In that case, the accused argued that he had no intention to go inside the polling place, much less to vote or campaign for anybody. The Court found that the accused's intent to perpetrate the act had been sufficiently established. However, it clarified that a man with a revolver, who merely passes along a public road on election day within 50 meters of a polling place does not violate the provision of law in question. For the same reason, a peace officer who pursues a criminal, as well as residents within 50 meters of a polling place who merely clean or handle their firearms within their own residences on election day cannot be considered carrying firearms within the contemplation of the legal prohibition. In Magno v. Court ofAppeals, 12 however, this Court looked beyond the accused's issuance of a check in order to determine the propriety of his conviction for violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22). The Court acquitted the accused upon finding that the checks were issued to cover a warranty deposit in a lease contract, where the lessor-supplier was also the financier of the deposit. The Court noted that the accused did not issue the check on account or for value but as part of a modus operandi whereby the supplier of the goods is, at the same time, privately financing the transaction. In acquitting the accused, this Court referred to the utilitarian theory, or the "protective theory" in criminal law, which "affirms that the primary function of punishment is the protection of society against actual and potential 11 12 G.R. No. 42288, 16 February 1935; 61 Phil. 181-186 (1935). G.R. No. 96132, 26 June 1992; 285 Phil. 983-993 (1992).