Decision 23 G.R. No. 224469 Hence, "[i]ntent to commit the crime and intent to perpetrate the act must be distinguished. A person may not have consciously intended 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[.]" When an act is prohibited by a special law, it is considered injurious to public welfare, and the performance of the prohibited act is the crime itself. Volition, or intent to commit the act, is different from criminal intent. Volition or voluntariness refers to knowledge of the act being done [in contrast to knowledge of the nature of his act]. On the other hand, criminal intent - which is different from motive, or the moving power for the commission of the crime - refers to the state of mind beyond voluntariness. It is this intent that is being punished by crimes mala in se. Mata/am recog11ized that the character or effect of the commission of the prohibited act, which is not required in proving a ma/um prohibitum case, is different from the intent and volition to commit the act which itself is prohibited if done without lawful cause. Justice Zalameda elucidates: The malum prohibitum nature of an offense, however, does not automatically result in a conviction. The prosecution must still establish that the accused had intent to perpetrate the act. Intent to perpetrate has been associated with the actor's volition, or intent to commit the act. Volition or voluntariness refers to knowledge of the act being done. In previous cases, this Court has determined the accused's volition on a case to case basis, taking into consideration the prior and contemporaneous acts of the accused and the surrounding circumstances. [I]t is clear that to determine the presence of an accused's intent to perpetrate a prohibited act, courts may look into the meaning and scope of the prohibition beyond the literal wording of the law. Although in malum prohibitum offenses, the act itself constitutes the crime, courts must still be mindful of practical exclusions to the law's coverage, particularly when a superficial and narrow reading of the same with result to absurd consequences. Further, as in People v. De Gracia and Mendoza v. People, temporary, incidental, casual, or harmless commission of prohibited acts were considered as an indication of the absence of an intent to perpetrate the offense. (Emphasis in the original) Here, as in Saguin, as reiterated in Mata/am, there was confusion arising from the new legal developments, particularly, the recognition of the indigenous peoples' (IPs) human rights normative system, in our country. To paraphrase and import the words used in Saguin, while doubtless there was voluntary and knowing act of cutting, removing, collecting, or harvesting of timber, we nonetheless consider the reasonable doubt engendered by the new normative system that the act was done without State authority, as required by Section 77 of PD 705, as amended.