Separate Concurring Opinion 5 G.R. No. 224469 Meanwhile, in cases with two or more accused, this Court has ruled that intent to perpetrate cam1ot be deduced from the mere presence of a person at a place where a prohibited act was committed. In Fajardo v. People, 17 the Court acquitted one of the accused charged with the offense of illegal possession of firearms because it was not proven that she participated or had knowledge or consent of her co-accused's possession of receivers. In Saguin v. People, 18 the accused were an accountant and cashier, respectively, of a provincial hospital. They were charged with violation of Section 23 of PD 1752, 19 as amended, which punishes the failure to remit contributions and loan ~payments to the Home Development Mutual Fund. Ruling in favor of the accused, the Court noted that the law was worded to punish failure to remit contributions if the same is "without lawful cause or with fraudulent intent." The Court observed that the accused were justified in their non-remittance because the financial operations of the hospital had been devolved to the provincial government, resulting in confusion as to who was responsible for making the remittance. In Dela Cruz v. People, 20 this Court further elaborated that the defense of the accused must . be weighed with the prosecution . evidence in determining the presence of animus possidendi. In assessing the viability of the defense of planting of evidence, courts should consider: (1) the motive of whoever allegedly planted the illegal firearm(s); (2) whether there was opportunity to plant the illegal firearm( s); and (3) the reasonableness of the situation creating the opportunity. In that case, the Court found it unlikely that the firearms would be planted in accused's baggage, as he was a frequent traveler and well-versed . with port security measures. ~ In Mendoza v. People, 21 this Court gave credence to the testimony of the accused and his witness that the firearms were placed in the compartment of the motorcycle without his knowledge. The Court noted that the accused was merely a designated .driver, and not the owner of the motorcycle; hence, cannot be remotely charged with or presumed to have knowledge of the subject firearm. ·· Based on the foregoing, it is clear that to determine the presence of an accused's intent to perpetrate a prohibited act, courts may look into the meaning and scope of the prohibition beyond the literal wording of the law. Although in malum prohibitum offenses, the act itself constitutes the crime, courts must still be mindful of practical exclusions to the law's coverage, particularly when a superficial and narrow reading of 17 18 19 20 21 G.R.No.190889, 10January2011;654Phil.184-207(2011). G.R. No. 210603, 25 November 2015; 773 Phil. 614-630 (2015). Home Development Mutual Fµnd Law of 1980. G.R. No. 209387, 11 January 2016; 776 Phil. 653-701 (2016). G.R. No. 234196, 21 November 2018.