Is mere transportation of illegal drugs a violation of RA 9165?

If it is, what are the elements of illegal transportation of drugs under Section 5, RA 9165?

How is intent to transport manifested? How is it proved in Court? Is it necessary that there must be evidence of the starting point of the act and the intended destination, in addition to the standard elements of illegal possession? Or, is it enough that the drugs are found loaded in any moving vehicle?

Please note of the wordings of section 5 that describes the acts punished thereunder as "...sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug xxx, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions."

The act of selling, trading, administering, dispensing, delivering, giving away to another, distribution connotes transfer of possession from one person to another. Transportation alone does not carry that common result of transferring possession.

Candidly, I find it hilarious if one who has possession of .000001 gram of shabu rode a bus can easily be denied bail because he or she was charged for transporting drugs, since he or she was arrested while riding the bus. Whereas, one who merely walked can apply for bail because he or she is charged for possession only.

Assuming: At point A, a concern citizen saw drugs being loaded inside a particular car and reported the incident to police. Thus, a check point was prepared at point B where the car will surely pass.

In a few minutes, despite being flagged to stop by police operatives, the same car loaded with the drugs indeed pass by the check point and did not stop; thus, police chased the car and was able to catch it only at point C.

The distance between point A to point B is about 5 kilometers. From point B to C, is about 3 kilometers.

Upon inspection of the the car at point C, it indeed had shabu, approximately 4.999 grams.

The driver of the car argues that he uses the car as a tool to hide the drugs, not to transport the same. He said that if i hide it in my house, my shabu might be stolen. In fact, he admitted that he was on his way to church to attend mass; after the mass, he will return to his original destination.

What is the particular provision of RA 9165 that has been violated? Is it mere possession of illegal drugs under par 3, Section 11, which is bailable? Or, illegal transportation of illegal drugs under section 5, which is non bailable?


Other related topics:

What does "dispatch in transit" mean?

Is there a difference between the act of "dispatch in transit" from the act of "transport" under section 5?

What does "distribute dispatch in transit or transport" really mean?

Your help needed badly. Views, opinions, and legal citations are highly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

I am currently researching on the subject of transportation of illegal drugs. So far, the following are my updates:

Is mere transportation of illegal drugs a violation of RA 9165?

Yes. It is malum prohibitum.

the act of transporting a prohibited drug is a "malum prohibitum because it is punished as an offense under a special law. It is a wrong because it is prohibited by law. Without the law punishing the act, it cannot be considered a wrong. As such, the mere commission of said act is what constitutes the offense punished and suffices to validly charge and convict an individual caught committing the act so punished, regardless of criminal intent. (People vs Jones, August 29, 1997, GRN 115581)

If it is, what are the elements of illegal transportation of drugs under Section 5, RA 9165?

The term "transport" is defined as "to carry or convey from one place to another." The operative words in the definition are "to carry or convey." The fact that there is actual conveyance suffices to support a finding that the act of transporting was committed.


How is intent to transport manifested? How is it proved in Court? Is it necessary that there must be evidence of the starting point of the act and the intended destination, in addition to the standard elements of illegal possession?

In People vs Lo Ho Wing, the accused were charged for "delivering, dispatching, or transporting" drugs. The accused "...argues that he cannot be convicted of "delivery" because the term connotes a source and a recipient, the latter being absent under the facts of the case. It is also argued that "dispatching' cannot apply either since appellant never sent off or disposed of drugs. As for "transporting," appellant contends that he cannot also be held liable therefor because the act of transporting necessarily requires a point of destination, which again is non- existent under the given facts

However, such arguements were not sustained.

The Court defined the term "transport", as used under the Dangerous drugs act to mean "to carry or convey from one place to another", the operative words being "to carry or to convey". The fact that there is actual conveyance suffices to support a finding that the act of transporting was committed. It is immaterial whether or not the place of destination was reached.


NOTE: THough the destination or end point need not be established, I HAVE NOT ENCOUNTERED A CASE where the starting point was not established in evidence. Though the limited cases I have read were silent as to necessity of proving a starting point, based on simple logic, I conclude that a starting point must be established in evidence to obtain conviction for transportation of drugs, because it is the basis of proving that there has been a movement of drugs from one point to another.

Thus, whether the drugs are in the possession of a person on-board a bus or in the possession of a person walking, if evidence shows that the drugs was moved or conveyed from one place or another, the crime is transportation of illegal drugs which is non-bailable and irregardless of quantity or quality.

In answering my hypothetical question, I submit that:

Irregardless of the intention of the driver of the car, whether he intend to transport or not, he is liable for transporting drugs hidden in his car. His admission that he hid the drugs to safekeep the same is an admission of control and possession thereof, but since he has caused the conveyance of the drugs from point A to B, B to C, his liability becomes more serious than mere possession. Whether he intended to bring back the drugs to point A is not mitigating.

Great topic loren, I am very interested in this one. Thanks!

I am glad that you find the topic interesting.