CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGEST/ PEOPLE V. MORILLA, FEBRUARY 5, 2014

PEOPLE V. MORILLA,

G.R. NO. 189833, FEBRUARY 5, 2014

TOPIC/DOCTRINE

The very act of transporting methamphetamine hydrochloride is malum prohibitum since it is punished as an offense under a special law. The fact of transportation of the sacks containing dangerous drugs need not be accompanied by proof of criminal intent, motive or knowledge.

FACTS

Mayor Ronnie Mitra (Panukulan, Quezon) and Javier Morilla were caught in flagrante delicto while transporting shabu on board a Starex van (driven by Mayor) and an ambulance (driven by Morilla). On a checkpoint at Real, Infanta Quezon, the Starex van was able to pass; however, police officers ordered the ambulance to stop. Policemen then ordered Morilla to open the rear door of the car for inspection of several sacks which according to Morilla are narra wooden tiles. The contents turned to be methamphetamine hydrochloride and this discovery prompted police officers to chase the Starex van. They were able to stop Mayor Mitra and asked him of his knowledge of Morilla driving the ambulance loaded with shabu. On plain view, operatives noticed that his van was also loaded with sacks like the ones found in the ambulance. Taken together, they carry a total of approximately 503.68 kilos of shabu.

On trial, both accused argued that they have no knowledge of the contents of the vehicle. Morilla further alleged that he only acted based on the instructions of the Mayor and hence, cannot be imputed to be a member of the alleged organized/ syndicated group as the Information alleged him to be. Trial court found conspiracy between Morilla and Mitra holding that they have the common intent to transport illegal drugs.

ISSUE

Is there a conspiracy to commit the offense charged?

RULING

Yes.

The court held that conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. (Article 8, RPC). To determine conspiracy, there must be a common design to commit a felony.

Here, the court held that the totality of the factual circumstances leads to a conclusion that Morilla conspired with Mayor Mitra in a common desire to transport the dangerous drugs. If indeed he was not involved in a conspiracy with Mayor Mitra, he would not have told the police officers that he was with the mayor.  The very act of transporting methamphetamine hydrochloride is malum prohibitum since it is punished as an offense under a special law. The fact of transportation of the sacks containing dangerous drugs need not be accompanied by proof of criminal intent, motive or knowledge.

Popular posts from this blog

CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGEST/ BACLAYON V. MUTIA, 129 SCRA 148

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I CASE DIGEST | THE DIOCESE OF BACOLOD V. COMELEC G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTIONS CASE DIGEST/ BPI FAMILY BANK VS. FRANCO/ G. R. NO. 123498/ 23 NOVEMBER 2007

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ MINA VS. PASCUAL/ 25 PHIL. 540 (1923)

REMEDIAL LAW | Riviera Golf Club v. CCA G.R. No. 173783, June 17 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ QUINTOS VS. BECK/ 69 PHIL. 108 (1939)

LAW ON PROPERTY | ACOSTA V. OCHOA, ET AL., G.R. NO. 211559; G.R. NO. 215634, OCTOBER 15, 2019

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION | HYGIENIC PACKAGING CORPORATION VS. NUTRI-ASIA, INC ., G.R. NO. 201302, JANUARY 23, 2019

LEGAL ETHICS | MAURICIO C. ULEP VS. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC Bar Matter No. 553. June 17, 1993

CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGEST/ BALA V. MARTINEZ, 181 SCRA 459