15.

People vs Lacerna

G.R. No. 109250 September 5, 1997 Facts: Police Officer 3 (PO3) Carlito P. Valenzuela with his co-police officer was assi gned to man the checkpoint and patrol the area somewhere along the sidestreets o f Radial Road near Moriones Street. The appellant and co-accused, Marlon and No riel Lacerna respectively, who were aboard a taxicab, passed by PO3 Valenzuela's place of assignment, which was then heavy with traffic, looking suspicious. Fe eling that something was amiss, PO3 Valenzuela and his companion stopped the veh icle and asked permission to search the vehicle. They found a knapsack and a dar k blue plastic grocery bag with several blocks wrapped in newspaper, with the di stinct smell of marijuana emanating from it. Appellant sets up the defense of denial, alleging that the blue plastic bag was owned by his uncle who requested him to bring it to Iloilo. He no longer inspect ed the contents of the bag as the same was twisted and knotted on top. Thus, he denied knowing that it contained marijuana. Issue: Whether or not the offense committed is punishable under special law. Held: YES. From the penal provision under consideration, the elements of illegal posse ssion of prohibited drugs are as follows: (a) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (b) such possession is not authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and consciously possessed the prohibited drug. The evidence on record established beyond any doubt that appellant was in posses sion of the plastic bag containing prohibited drugs without the requisite author ity. The NBI forensic chemist's identification of the marijuana or Indian hemp w as conclusive. It is well-settled that criminal intent need not be proved in the prosecution of acts mala prohibita. On grounds of public policy and compelled by necessity, co urts have always recognized the power of the legislature, as "the greater master of things," to forbid certain acts in a limited class of cases and to make thei r commission criminal without regard to the intent of the doer. The prohibited a ct is so injurious to the public welfare that, regardless of the person's intent , it is the crime itself. A person may not have consciously intended to commit a crime; but if he did inte nd to commit an act, and that act is, by the very nature of things, the crime it self, then he can be held liable for the malum prohibitum. Intent to commit the crime is not necessary, but intent to perpetrate the act prohibited by the spec ial law must be shown. Appellant is, therefore, liable for illegal possession of prohibited drugs under Section 8 of the Dangerous Drugs Act.

16.

People vs Sunico, et. al

(C.A., 50 o.g. 5880) Facts: The accused were election inspectors and poll clerks whose duty among others wa s to transfer the names of excess voters in other precincts to the list of a new ly created precinct. Several voters were omitted in the list. Because their name s were not in the list, some of them were not allowed to vote. The accused claim ed that they made the omission in good faith. However, the CFI convicted the acc used reasoning that the offense is malum prohibitum, which is in violation of Se cs. 101 and 103 of the Revised Election Code, and that good faith is not a defen se. The trial court seemed to believe that notwithstanding the fact that the accused committed in good faith the serious offense charged, the latter are criminally responsible therefor, because such offense is malum prohibitum, and, consequentl y, the act constituting the same need not be committed with malice or criminal i ntent to be punishable. Issue: Whether or not the offense is punishable under special criminal law malum prohib itum or malum in se. Held: The acts of the accused cannot be merely mala prohibita - they are mala per se. The omission or failure to include a voter s name in the registry list of voters is not only wrong because it is prohibited; it is wrong per se because it disenfran chises a voter and violates one of his fundamental rights. Hence, for such act t o be punishable, it must be shown that it has been committed with malice. There is no clear showing in the instant case that the accused intentionally, willfull y and maliciously omitted or failed to include in the registry list of voters th e names of those voters. They cannot be punished criminally. Accused were acquit ted.