Separate Concurring Opinion G.R. No. 224469 4 wrongdoers. II The Court did not consider the accused as the wrongdoer, but rather the victim of a vicious trans·action. On the other hand, the Court, in People v. De Gracia, 13 discussed intent to perpetrate in the offense of illegal possession of firearms. The Court held that, in addition to proving the fact of possession of a firearm, the prosecution must also establish that the accused had animus possidendi or an intent to possess the firearm. Intent being an internal state of mind, courts are allowed to infer it from prior ·and contemporaneous acts of the accused, and the surrounding circumstances. Thus, the Court considered the background of the accused as a soldier to conclude that he knew the import of having such a large quantity of explosives and ammunition in his possession. The Court ruled that as long as it is established that the accused freely and consciously possessed the firearm, conviction is proper. Conversely, a temporary, incidental, casual, or harmless possession or control of a firearm cannot be considered as illegal possession of a firearm. In the same vein, in People v. Dela Rosa, 14 this Court acquitted the surrendering rebels of the crime of illegal possession of firearms. The Court ruled that physical or constructive possession of firearms, without animus possidendi, is not punishable. The Court found that the four (4) accused had no intent to perpetrate the prohibited act, considering that they already surrendered the firearms prior to the arrival of the police. This Court declared that the accused's possession was harmless, temporary, and only incidental for the purpose of surrendering the weapons to the authorities. ' " In Tigoy v. Court of Appeals, 15 this Court found that the truck driver who transported lumber had intent to perpetrate the offense. After classifying Section 68 of P.D. 705, as amended by Executive Order No. 277, as a mala prohibita offense, the Court stated that conviction for such offense is proper as long as it is established that the act was committed knowingly and consciously. The Court noted the driver's demeanor upon apprehension by the police - refusing to stop when required by the police and offering "grease money" when he was finally apprehended. The Court held that these actions show the driver had knowledge that he was transporting and was in possession of undocumented lumber in violation of law. Contrariwise, in Spouses Veroy V. Layague, 16 this Court dismissed the criminal case for illegal possession of firearms upon the prosecution's failure to establish that accused spouses had knowledge that firearms were stored in their provincial home in Davao. 13 14 15 16 G.R. Nos. 102009-10, 06 July 1994; 304 Phil. 118-138 (1994). G.R. No. 84857, 16 January 1998; 348 Phil. 173-189 (1998). G.R. No. 144640, 26 June 2006; 525 Phil. 613-624 (2006). G.R. No. 95630, 18 June 1992; 285 Phil. 555-566 (1992).