285 PEOPLE v MARIACOS crime charged is malum prohibitum, as in this case.

Mere possession and/or

G.R. No. 188611 | 16 June 2010 | J. Nachura | TIGLAO delivery of a prohibited drug, without legal authority, is punishable under the
TOPIC: Crimes Relative to Opium and Other Drugs Dangerous Drugs Act.

DOCTRINE: Anti-narcotics laws, like anti-gambling laws, are regulatory statutes.
They are rules of convenience designed to secure a more orderly regulation of
the affairs of society, and their violation gives rise to crimes mala prohibita. Laws
defining crimes mala prohibita condemn behavior directed not against
particular individuals, but against public order.
Anti-narcotics laws, like anti-gambling laws, are regulatory statutes. They are
rules of convenience designed to secure a more orderly regulation of the affairs
of society, and their violation gives rise to crimes mala prohibita. Laws defining
crimes mala prohibita condemn behavior directed not against particular
individuals, but against public order.

ER: A woman was seen carrying bags of marijuana after alighting from a Jurisprudence defines transport as to carry or convey from one place to
jeepney. PO2 Pallayos arrested her for possession. The accused argues that she another. There is no definitive moment when an accused transports a
is not the owner of the drugs. SC held that ownership is immaterial. Possession prohibited drug. When the circumstances establish the purpose of an accused
controls the crime. to transport and the fact of transportation itself, there should be no question as
to the perpetration of the criminal act. The fact that there is actual conveyance
suffices to support a finding that the act of transporting was committed and it
FACTS: is immaterial whether or not the place of destination is reached.
1. PO2 Pallayos met with a secret agent of the Barangay Intelligence
Network who informed him that a baggage of marijuana had been Moreover, appellants possession of the packages containing illegal drugs gave
loaded in a passenger jeepney that was about to leave. rise to the disputable presumption that she is the owner of the packages and
2. The agent mentioned three bags and one plastic bag. Further, the their contents. Appellant failed to rebut this presumption. Her uncorroborated
agent described a backpack with OK marking. claim of lack of knowledge that she had prohibited drug in her possession is
3. PO2 Pallayoc boarded the jeepney. He found bricks of marijuana insufficient.
wrapped in newspapers.
4. He then asked the other passengers about the owner of the bag, but
no one knew.
5. When the jeepney reached Poblacion, PO2 Pallayoc alighted together
with the other passengers. He did not notice who took the black
backpack. He only realized a few moments later that the said bag and
3 other bags were already being carried away by two women.
6. He caught up with the women and introduced himself as a policeman.
He told them that they were under arrest, but one of the women got
away.
7. Accused raises the defense that what she was carrying did not belong
to her but to a neighbor who asked her to carry it for him.

ISSUE/S: W/N ownership of the drugs is material in the prosection of the offense
– NO

HELD/RULING:
When an accused is charged with illegal possession or transportation of
prohibited drugs, the ownership thereof is immaterial. Consequently, proof of
ownership of the confiscated marijuana is not necessary.

Appellants alleged lack of knowledge does not constitute a valid defense. Lack
of criminal intent and good faith are not exempting circumstances where the