Cabugatan

What is material to the prosecution for sale of illegal drugs is proof of the
transaction and that the sale took place, with presentation in court of the
corpus delcti

SJS v DDA
The addition of a the requirement of a drug test for elections is adding
another qualification not found in the constitution for senator
Drug testing of students is ok due to loco parentis and students have
contextually fewer rights than adults and school can impose conditions for
admission
Employee drug testing is ok provided it is reasonable and their privacy is
protected the same applies to govt employee
Drug testing of those charged with a criminal offense removes the concept of
randomness and suspicionless drug testing and would lead people self
incriminate themselves

Partoza
Issue w/n the evidentiary value of the substances were preserved to excuse the
non-compliance: NO
1. No explanation was offered by the officer why he failed to observe the rules
2. No records how the seized items were handled from one person to the next
3. Corpus delicti was not proven.
4. Presumption of regularity does not apply because they already failed to comply
with the rules

Padua
Issue w/n the ground of failure to present witnesses of all who had the drug is a
ground to invalidate the seizure : No
1. All that must be established is the chain of custody, no need to present as
witnesses all that had contact with the drugs

Habana
Issue w/n the evidentiary value of the substances were preserved to excuse the
non-compliance: NO
1. Failure to show how drugs changed hands
2. Failure to seal the substance would require presentation of every person in the
chain of custody wherein the drugs passed through. This is because if unsealed it
must be shown that each one of them will testifty that it was not tampered or
substituted with.
People v Santaigo
Issue w/n the evidentiary value of the substances were preserved to excuse the
non-compliance: NO
1. There was a discrepancy with the testimony of the officer who said that he
delivered it to the crime lab but records show that at the crime lab it was not
esguerra who delivered it
2. Records show movement of the drugs between two more persons but there is no
testimony that covers this period of movement
3. If they could present the chemist to testify that esguerra was the one that who
gave him the drugs than that would be sufficient but he did not
4. There was no account of where the drugs were until it was presented as evidence
in court, this is a fatal defect because chain of custody must be established until trial.

People v Watatama
Issue w/n the evidentiary value of the substances were preserved to excuse the
non-compliance: NO
1. prosecuton failed to show how the immediate officer turned over custody of the
drugs to the investigator
2. Mere testimony of the officer is not enough
3. There was also no record on how another officer came to posses the drugs and
delivered the same to the crime lab

Dahil
Issue w/n the evidentiary value of the substances were preserved to excuse the
non-compliance: NO

The 4 links
1. Marking of the drugs by the officer with his signature to prevent switching,
contamination or planting of evidence this must be done immediately from the place
of seizure to account for the movement of the drugs from place of immediate seizure
to its next place.
However the marking can be made elsewhere provided it is with presence of
accused or council

2. The next link is from the officer who confiscated to the officer supervising officer
who will turn the drug over to the laboratory No testimony or record of this is a
defect in the chain of custody

3. The next link is from the police to the chemist lack of testimony or records as to
who received the drugs is defective.

4. The last link is turn over of drugs from chemist to the court lack of any record or
testimony as to how they were kept in custody during this point is also defective
Arson

People v Acosta
Proof of the crime charged is complete upon evidence establishing the corpus
delcti which is a fire caused by criminal agency and Identity of the
defendants

People v Bueblos
Destructive arson is distinguished from simple arson based on the level of
heinousness or severity of the crime with simple arson being less severe but
can become destructive with the proper aggravating circumstances

People v Baluntong
Primary objective is Primary objective is to Primary objective was to
burning kill and means was fire kill and fire used to
conceal
Arson Murder Murder/Homicide
Arson

BP22
Lim v People
Guarantee checks are not valid defenses, the terms and conditions surrounding the
issuance of the checks are irrelevant

Wong V CA
The presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds arises when
1. The check is presented within 90 days from the date of the check
2. The check is dishonored
3. Failure to make arrangements for payments within 5 banking days from
dishonorment
4. Only the presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds is lose if the
check is presented past 90 days (in this case it was presented 157 days from
the date of the check)
5. Direct or circumstantial evidence can still prove knowledge

People v Grospe
The determinative factor for determining the venue for trial is where the
check was issued
Llamado v CA
Defense that one was not party to the transaction and signed the check in
blank as provided in the Dingle case did not apply in this case, the accused
was the treasurer of the corporation and so lack of involvement in the
transaction was not a defense.

Cabrera v People
It is not enough that prosecution show notice of demand was sent but that
the drawer received the notice shown by CLEAR PROOF OF NOTICE.

Svedsen v People
The law requires notice be sent to the drawer of dishonorment but also
PROOF OF RECIEPT that is PROPERLY AUTHENTICATED and not mere
registered receipt or return receipt.

People v RTC Judge Nitafan

A memorandum check is a check signifying that the maker or drawer will pay
the bone fide holder without any condition as to presentment. A memo check
still falls under BP22 because mere issuing a bum check is malum prohibitum

Lim Lao v CA
The accused signed the checks in blank as was the practice of the company
but it was not also part of the companys organizational structure is that the
accused would not possess knowledge of the transaction
Higher Penalty for Estafa

Guy v CA
The elements of syndicated estafa are
o Estafa or other forms of swindling are committed
o It is done by a syndicate of 5 persons
o Defraudation results from misappropriation of money solicited from
the general public
Issue: what if another outside organization was used and the estafadors just
used the outside org as an element of their scheme to defraud but did not
own or manage or form that organization can members of that org be held
liable?
o Only those who formed and managed the associations that received
the contributions from the general public who misappropriated the
same
o It does not apply if ANOTHER ORGANIZATION wherein the accused
are neither employed, owners was used a means to defraud people

Catiis v CA
Syndiated estafa is defined as being done by 5 or more persons, if only 4 or
less persons are charged in the offense the crime is not syndicated.
Dungo v People
Elements of hazing
o There is an initiation rite or practice as a prerequisite as membership
into an organization
o There is a recruit, applicant or neophyte
o There recruit, applicant or neophyte is put in some emberassing or
humiliating situation or otherwise subjected to physical or
psychological suffering or injury
Issue: Is it a defense that one was present but there is no proof to show he
participated?
o No, the law provides that mere presence is prima facie evidence of
participation unless you took steps to prevent the hazing
o It relates to the common design of the offenders to haze the victim

Anti-Wiretapping
Ganaan v IAC
Issue: Will an extention phone used to overhear someones conversation
count as wiretapping?
o No: The law defines the crime of illegal wiretapping as the use of
Dictaphones, dictographs, walkie talkies, tape recorders or however
otherwise described without court authority or consent of all parties
involved
The law refers to tap which is a physical interruption of a
device through deliberate installation of a device or
arrangement to intercept done by the offender
Thus the devices it speaks of are those that whose installation
or presence cannot be presumed by the parties because by
their very nature are not of common usage and their purpose is
to tap or record

Mejorada v SB
Elements of Sec 3(e)
o Accused is a public officer
o The public officer caused undue injury to any party including the
government or gave any private party unwarranted benefits,
advantage or preference in the discharge of his official or
administrative or judicial functions
o The injury to any party or giving any private party unwarranted
benefits or advantages was done through manifest partiality, evident
bad faith or inexcusable negligence

Issue: Is it a defense under 3e that the office is not charged with granting
licenses or permits? NO
 o The clear inclusion of that provision in the law was not meant to
classify the offender in that particular act but instead to ensure that
public officer who grant such concessions are included as a person
who may commit an offense under this section

Fonacier v SB
Issue: 3e requires the offender to be both in bad faith, negligence and partial for it to
have been commited: No
They are 2 distinct modes to commit the offense
Partiality is defined as bias
Bad faith is dishonest purpose or conscious doing of a wrong
Gross inexcusable negligence is the failure to exercise even slight care in
acting or omitting to act in a situation where he has the duty to act.