UPDATES IN SPECIAL PENAL LAWS
affirmatively operating with furtive design or with
by
DEAN GEMY LITO L. FESTIN
PUP College of Law
(excerpts from the book “Bar Review Guide
to Criminal Law: An insight to the Bar
Exams” published by Central Book
Supply, Inc.)
------------------------------------------------------
A. THE ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT
PRACTICES ACT
[BAR Q. ‘85, ‘88, ‘90, ‘91, ‘97, ‘99, ‘00,
‘03, ‘09, ‘10, ‘11, ’12, ‘14]
1. Private person may be liable.
It bears to reiterate the settled rule that
private persons, when acting in conspiracy with
public officers, may be indicted and, if found
guilty, held liable for the pertinent offenses under
Section 3 (e) of R.A. 3019, in consonance with
the avowed policy of the anti-graft law to repress
certain acts of public officers and private
persons alike constituting graft or corrupt
practices act or which may lead thereto. This is
the controlling doctrine as enunciated by the
Court in previous cases.(Edelbert C. Uyboco
vs. People, G.R. No. 211703, December 10,
2014, Velasco Jr., J.)
2. Good faith of heads of offices in signing a
document.
The good faith of heads of offices in
signing a document will only be appreciated if
they, with trust and confidence, have relied on
their subordinates in whom the duty is primarily
lodged. (Sanchez vs. People ,703 SCRA 586,
G.R. No. 187340, August 14, 2013,Sereno,
CJ.)
3. Manifest partiality, Evident bad faith and
Gross inexcusable negligence
explained.
In Uriarte vs. People, the Court
explained that Section 3(e) of RA 3019 may be
committed either by dolo, as when the accused
acted with evident bad faith or manifest
partiality, or by culpa, as when the accused
committed gross inexcusable negligence. There
is “manifest partiality” when there is clear,
notorious, or plain inclination or predilection to
favor one side or person rather than another.
th
Address: Unit 2, 4 Floor, España Place Building, 1139 Adelina Street corner España Boulevard
Sampaloc, Manila (Beside UST near Morayta Street)
* www.villasislawcenter.com / www.facebook.com/villasislawcenter / www.remediallawdoctrines.blogspot.com /
villasislawcenter@gmail.com / mvplawoffice@gmail.com
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
“Evident bad faith” contemplates a state of mind
some motive of self-interest or ill will or for
ulterior purposes. “Gross inexcusable
negligence” refers to negligence characterized
by the want of even the slightest care, acting or
omitting to act in a situation where there is a
duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and
intentionally, with conscious indifference to
consequences insofar as other persons may be
affected. (Jovito C. Plameras vs. People of
the Philippines, G.R. No. 187268, September
4,2013, Perez, J.)
4. When can private persons be charged.
However, private persons may likewise
be charged with violation of Section 3(g) of RA
3019 if they conspired with the public officer.
(Gregorio Sing Ian, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan
(3rd division),The People of the Philippines,
G.R. Nos.195011-19, September 30, 2013,Del
Castillo, J.)
5. Contract and transaction explained.
A transaction, like a contract, is one
which involves some consideration as in credit
transactions and this element (consideration) is
absent in the investigation conducted by the
petitioner. In the light of the foregoing, the Court
agrees with the petitioner that it was error for the
Sandiganbayan to have convicted him of
violating Sec. 3 (b) of R.A. No. 3019. (People
vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 188165/G.R. No.
189063 December 11, 2013,Bersamin, J.)
Notably, the offense defined under Section 3
(e) of R.A. No. 3019 may be committed even
if bad faith is not attendant.
Thus, even assuming for the sake of
argument that Coloma did not act in bad faith in
rendering his report, his negligence under the
circumstances was not only gross but also
inexcusable. (Coloma vs. Sandiganbayan,
G.R. No. 205561, September 24,
2014,Mendoza, J.)
B. THE COMPREHENSIVE
DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002
[BAR Q. ‘92, ‘96, ‘98, ‘00, ‘02, ‘04, ‘05,
‘06, ‘07, ‘09, ’10, ‘14]
1. The identity of the prohibited drug must be
established.
Proof of the chain of custody from the
time of seizure to the time such evidence is
presented in court ensures the absence of doubt
1
concerning the integrity of such vital
evidence. This requires as a minimum that the
police mark the seized item (1) in the presence
of the apprehended violator and (2) immediately
upon confiscation. (People vs. Palomares, G.R.
No. 200915, February 12, 2014)
2. Essential elements of illegal sale.
In this case, the prosecution failed to
prove that each and every element that
constitutes an illegal sale of dangerous drug was
present to convict the accused. Upon evaluation
of the testimonies of PO1 Familara and PO1
Mendoza, it is apparent that there is an
inconsistency on the identity and number of
plastic sachets bought from the accused. In his
statement, PO1 Familara recalled that upon
arrival at the place of arrest, PO1 Mendoza told
him that he was able to buy one plastic sachet of
shabu from Guinto. On the other hand, PO1
Mendoza recalled that he was able to buy two
plastic sachets instead of one. The pointed
inconsistency is not a minor one that can be
brushed aside as the discrepancy taints the very
corpus delicti of the crime of illegal sale. A vital
point of contention, the prosecution’s evidence
places in reasonable doubt the identification of
the dangerous drug that was presented in court.
(People vs. Guinto, G.R. No. 198314,
September 24, 2014, Perez, J.)
In order to overcome the presumption of
regularity, there must be clear and convincing
evidence that the police officers did not properly
perform their duties or that they were prompted
with ill motive, none of which exists in this case.
(People of the Philippines vs. Mercidita
Resurreccion y Torres, G.R. No. 188310 June
13, 2013, Leonardo-De Castro, J.)
The Court has held that prior
surveillance is not necessary to render a buy-
bust operation legitimate, especially when the
buy-bust team is accompanied at the target area
by the informant. Similarly, the presentation of
an informant as a witness is not regarded as
indispensable to the success in prosecuting
drug-related cases. In this case, the informant
had actively participated in the buy-bust
operation and her testimony, if presented, would
merely corroborate the testimonies of the
members of the buy-bust team. (People vs.
Monceda, G.R. No. 176269, November 13,
2013, Brion, J.)
3. What is “Marking”?
“Marking” is the placing by the
apprehending officer of some distinguishing
signs with his/her initials and signature on the
items seized. Consistency with the “chain of
th
Address: Unit 2, 4 Floor, España Place Building, 1139 Adelina Street corner España Boulevard
Sampaloc, Manila (Beside UST near Morayta Street)
* www.villasislawcenter.com / www.facebook.com/villasislawcenter / www.remediallawdoctrines.blogspot.com /
villasislawcenter@gmail.com / mvplawoffice@gmail.com
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
custody” rule requires that the “marking” of the
seized items — to truly ensure that they are the
same items that enter the chain and are
eventually the ones offered in evidence —
should be done (1) in the presence of the
apprehended violator (2) immediately upon
confiscation. (People vs. Somoza, 701 SCRA
525, G.R. No. 197250, July 17, 2013,
Leonardo-De Castro, J.)
4. Chain of custody and objective test.
To establish the chain of custody in a
buy-bust operation, the prosecution must
establish the following links, namely: First, the
seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal
drug recovered from the accused by the
apprehending officer; Second, the turnover of
the illegal drug seized by the apprehending
officer to the investigating officer; Third, the
turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal
drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory
examination; and Fourth, the turnover and
submission of the marked illegal drug seized by
the forensic chemist to the court.
The “objective test” is the duty of the
prosecution to present a complete picture
detailing the buy-bust operation — from the
initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the
pusher, the offer to purchase, the promise or
payment of the consideration, until the
consummation of the sale by the delivery of the
illegal subject of sale. (People vs. Clara, 702
SCRA 273, G.R. No. 195528, July 24, 2013,
Perez, J.)
5. Effect of Gaps or Lapses in the Chain of
Custody of Illegal Drugs.
The discussion in People v. Lim is
apropos: x xx [A]ny apprehending team having
initial custody and control of said drugs and/or
paraphernalia, should immediately after seizure
and confiscation, have the same physically
inventoried and photographed in the presence of
the accused, if there be any, and or his
representative, who shall be required to sign the
copies of the inventory and be given a copy
thereof. The failure of the agents to comply
with such a requirement raises a doubt
whether what was submitted for laboratory
examination and presented in court was
actually recovered from the appellants. It
negates the presumption that official duties
have been regularly performed by the PAOC-
TF agents. (People vs. Balibay, G.R. No.
202701, September 10, 2014 ,Perez, J.)
First, it is not clear from the evidence
that the marking, which was done in the police
2
station, was made in the presence of the
accused or his representative. Although the
Court has previously ruled that the marking
upon “immediate” confiscation of the prohibited
items contemplates even that which was done at
the nearest police station or office of the
apprehending team, the same must always be
done in the presence of the accused or his
representative.
Second, the prosecution failed to duly
accomplish the Certificate of Inventory and to
take photos of the seized items pursuant to the
above-stated provision.
Third, the Court finds conflicting
testimony and glaring inconsistencies that would
cast doubt on the integrity of the handling of the
seized drugs. (People of the Philippines vs.
Freddy Salonga y Afiado, G. R. No. 194948,
September 2, 2013, Sereno, CJ.)
The following are the links that must be
established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust
situation: First, the seizure and marking, if
practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from
the accused by the apprehending officer;
Second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized
by the apprehending officer to the investigating
officer; Third, the turnover by the investigating
officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist
for laboratory examination; and Fourth, the
turnover and submission of the marked illegal
drug seized from the forensic chemist to the
court.
The first crucial link in the chain of
custody starts with the seizure from Enriquez of
the dangerous drugs and its subsequent
marking. Nowhere in the documentary and
testimonial evidence of the prosecution can it be
found when these items were actually marked
and if they were marked in the presence of
Enriquez or at least his representative.
The second link in the chain of custody
is the turnover of the illegal drug by the
apprehending officer to the investigating officer.
However, they both failed to identify the person
to whom they turned over the seized items.
There is no evidence to show that he was the
person who received the seized items from the
apprehending officers.
As for the third and the last links,
although records show that Chief of Police
Erese signed the request for laboratory
examination, he was not presented in court to
testify as such. The testimony of Chief of Police
Erese is indispensable because he could have
provided the critical link between the testimony
of SPO2 David, and the tenor of the testimony of
P/Insp. Dizon, which the parties have stipulated
th
Address: Unit 2, 4 Floor, España Place Building, 1139 Adelina Street corner España Boulevard
Sampaloc, Manila (Beside UST near Morayta Street)
* www.villasislawcenter.com / www.facebook.com/villasislawcenter / www.remediallawdoctrines.blogspot.com /
villasislawcenter@gmail.com / mvplawoffice@gmail.com
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
on. Moreover, no one testified as to how the
confiscated items were handled and cared for
after the laboratory examination. (People of the
Philippines vs. Arturo Enriquez De los
Reyes, G.R. No. 197550, September 25,2013,
Leonardo-De Castro, J.)
In the case at bar, instead of
immediately marking the subject drug upon its
confiscation, PO2 Tuzon marked it with his
initials “EAT” only upon arrival at the police
station. While the failure of arresting officers to
mark the seized items at the place of arrest does
not, by itself, impair the integrity of the chain of
custody and render the confiscated items
inadmissible in evidence, such circumstance,
when taken in light of the several other lapses in
the chain of custody that attend the present
case, forms part of a gross, systematic, or
deliberate disregard of the safeguards that are
drawn by the law, sufficient to create reasonable
doubt as to the culpability of the accused.
6. Failure to immediately mark the seized
drugs.
To be able to create a first link in the
chain of custody, then, what is required is that
the marking be made in the presence of the
accused and upon immediate confiscation.
“Immediate confiscation” has no exact definition.
Thus, in People v. Gum-Oyen, testimony that
included the marking of the seized items at the
police station and in the presence of the
accused was sufficient in showing compliance
with the rules on chain of custody. Marking upon
immediate confiscation contemplates even
marking at the nearest police station or office of
the apprehending team. (People of the
Philippines vs. Giovanni Ocfemia y Chavez,
G.R. No. 185383, September 25, 2013 ,
Leonardo-De Castro.)
7. Crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs
necessarily includes the crime of illegal
possession.
Well-settled in jurisprudence that the
crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs
necessarily includes the crime of illegal
possession of dangerous drugs.
The Court had further clarified, in
relation to the requirement of marking the drugs
“immediately after seizure and confiscation,” that
the marking may be undertaken at the police
station rather than at the place of arrest for as
long as it is done in the presence of the accused
and that what is of utmost importance is the
preservation of its integrity and evidentiary
value. (People of the Philippines vs. Michael
Maongco y Yumonda, G.R. No. 196966,
October 23,2013, Leonardo-De Castro, J.)
3

8. Failure to make an inventory and to take
photographs of the subject drug.
Contrary to the argument of the
defense, even the buy-bust team’s failure to
make an inventory and to take photographs of
the subject drug did not adversely affect the
prosecution’s case. What is essential is that the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
items which would be utilized in the
determination of the guilt or innocence of the
accused are preserved. (People vs. Loks, G.R.
No. 203433, November 27, 2013, Reyes, J.)
A proviso was added in the
implementing rules that “noncompliance with
these requirements under justifiable grounds, as
long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of
the seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending officer/team, shall not render void
and invalid such seizures of and custody over
said items.” Pertinently, it is the preservation of
the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
items which must be proven to establish the
corpus delicti. (People vs. Cerdon, G.R. No.
201111, August 6, 2014, Perez, J.)
Coordination with the PDEA is not an
indispensable element of a proper buy-bust
operation. A buy-bust operation is not
invalidated by mere non-coordination with the
PDEA. (People vs. Montevirgen, G.R. No.
189840 December 11, 2013, Del Castillo, J. )
9. What does marking upon immediate
confiscation mean?
It begins with the marking of the seized
objects to fix its identity; Marking upon
“immediate” confiscation can reasonably cover
marking done at the nearest police station or
office of the apprehending team, especially
when the place of seizure is volatile and could
draw unpredictable reactions from its
surroundings. (People vs. Bautista, G.R. No.
198113 December 11, 2013, Abad, J.)
10. Testimony of poseur-buyer not
indispensable.
The testimony of the poseur-buyer was
not therefore indispensable or necessary; it
would have been cumulative merely, or
corroborative at best." His testimony can
therefore be dispensed with since the illicit
transaction was actually witnessed and
adequately proved by the prosecution
witnesses. (People vs. Marcelo, G.R. No.
181541, August 18, 2014, Del Castillo, J.)
th
Address: Unit 2, 4 Floor, España Place Building, 1139 Adelina Street corner España Boulevard
Sampaloc, Manila (Beside UST near Morayta Street)
* www.villasislawcenter.com / www.facebook.com/villasislawcenter / www.remediallawdoctrines.blogspot.com /
villasislawcenter@gmail.com / mvplawoffice@gmail.com
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
11. Failure to present the buy-bust money
not fatal.
Failure to present the buy-bust money is
not fatal to the prosecution’s cause. It is not
indispensable in drug cases since it is merely
corroborative evidence, and the absence thereof
does not create a hiatus in the evidence for the
prosecution provided the sale of dangerous
drugs is adequately proven and the drug subject
of the transaction is presented before the court.
(People vs. Bayan, G.R. No. 200987, August
20, 2014, Perez, J.)
12. Actual and constructive possession
distinguished.
Exclusive possession or control is not
necessary. The accused cannot avoid
conviction if his right to exercise control and
dominion over the place where the contraband is
located, is shared with another. (People vs. De
La Trinidad,G.R. No. 199898, September 03,
2014,Perez, J.)
13. Effect of failure to offer in evidence the
Certificate of Inventory and the formal
request for examination of the confiscated
substance.
It is true that the prosecution did not
formally offer in evidence the Certificate of
Inventory and the formal request for examination
of the confiscated substance. Be that as it may,
the Court has previously held that even if an
exhibit is not formally offered, the same “may
still be admitted against the adverse party if,
first, it has been duly identified by testimony duly
recorded and, second, it has itself been
incorporated in the records of the case.” PO3
Velasquez categorically testified that an
inventory of the seized drugs was performed, a
corresponding certificate was prepared, and a
formal request for examination was made. He
further narrated that together with the formal
request, he submitted and delivered the
confiscated drugs to the crime laboratory. On
the basis of the said formal request, P/Insp.
Roderos examined the specimen and she
likewise testified on this. Appellant’s counsel
even asked the said prosecution witnesses
regarding these documents. Considering the
said testimonies and the fact that the documents
were incorporated in the records of the case,
they are therefore admissible against appellant.
(People vs. Baturi, G.R. No. 189812,
September 01, 2014, Del Castillo, J.)
14. Presentation of confidential informant.
The non-presentation of the confidential
informant as a witness does not ordinarily
4
weaken the State's case against the accused.
However, if the arresting lawmen arrested the
accused based on the pre-arranged signal from
the confidential informant who acted as the
poseur buyer, his non-presentation must be
credibly explained and the transaction
established by other ways in order to satisfy the
quantum of proof beyond reasonable doubt
because the arresting lawmen did not
themselves participate in the buy-bust
transaction with the accused.
In People vs. Lopez (214 SCRA 323), it
was held that there was no need for the
prosecution to present the confidential informer
as the poseur-buyer himself positively identified
the accused as the one who sold to him one
deck of methamphetamine hydrochloride or
"shabu." The trial court then properly relied on
the testimonies of the police officers despite the
decision of the prosecution not to present the
informer. (People vs. Andaya, G.R. No.
183700, October 13, 2014, Bersamin, J.)
15. Buy-bust operation defined.
A buy-bust operation is "a form of
entrapment, in which the violator is caught in
flagrante delicto and the police officers
conducting the operation are not only authorized
but duty-bound to apprehend the violator and to
search him for anything that may have been part
of or used in the commission of the
crime." (People vs. Adriano, G.R. No. 208169,
October 08, 2014, Perez, J.)
16. When seized item is “fruit of the
poisonous tree”.
Records have established that both the
arrest and the search were made without a
warrant. While the accused has already waived
his right to contest the legality of his arrest, he is
not deemed to have equally waived his right to
contest the legality of the search. (Danilo
Villanueva y Alcaraz vs. People, G.R. No.
199042, November 17, 2014, Sereno, CJ. )
17. Plain view doctrine and its requisites.
The plain view doctrine applies when
the following requisites concur: (1) the law
enforcement officer in search of the evidence
has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a
position from which he can view a particular
area; (2) the discovery of the evidence in a plain
view is inadvertent; and (3) it is immediately
apparent to the officer that the item he observes
may be evidence of a crime, contraband or
otherwise subject to seizure. (Rizaldy Sanchez
y Cajili vs. People, G.R. No. 204589,
November 19, 2014, Mendoza, J.)
th
Address: Unit 2, 4 Floor, España Place Building, 1139 Adelina Street corner España Boulevard
Sampaloc, Manila (Beside UST near Morayta Street)
* www.villasislawcenter.com / www.facebook.com/villasislawcenter / www.remediallawdoctrines.blogspot.com /
villasislawcenter@gmail.com / mvplawoffice@gmail.com
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
18. With reference to the importation and
possession of blasting caps, it seems plain
beyond argument that the latter is inherent in
the former so as to make them juridically
identical. There can hardly be importation
without possession. When one brings
something or causes something to be
brought into the country, he necessarily has
the possession of it. The possession
ensuing from the importation may not be
actual, but legal, or constructive, but
whatever its character, the importer, in our
opinion, is a possessor in the juristic sense
and he is liable to criminal prosecution.
Applying the aforequoted ruling, this
Court finds that while appellants cannot be held
liable for the offense of illegal importation
charged in the information, their criminal liability
for illegal possession, if proven beyond
reasonable doubt, may nevertheless be
sustained. As previously mentioned, the crime
of importation of regulated drugs is committed
by importing or bringing any regulated drug into
the Philippines without being authorized by
law. Indeed, when one brings something or
causes something to be brought into the
country, he necessarily has possession of the
same. Necessarily, therefore, importation can
never be proven without first establishing
possession, affirming the fact that possession is
a condition sine qua non for it would rather be
unjust to convict one of illegal importation of
regulated drugs when he is not proven to be in
possession thereof.
At this point, this Court notes that
charging appellants with illegal possession when
the information filed against them charges the
crime of importation does not violate their
constitutional right to be informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation brought against
them. The rule is that when there is a variance
between the offense charged in the complaint or
information, and that proved or established by
the evidence, and the offense as charged
necessarily includes the offense proved, the
accused shall be convicted of the offense
proved included in that which is charged. An
offense charged necessarily includes that which
is proved, when some of the essential elements
or ingredients of the former, as this is alleged in
the complaint or information, constitute the
latter.
Indeed, the Court has had several
occasions in the past wherein an accused,
charged with the illegal sale of dangerous drugs,
was convicted of illegal possession thereof. In
those cases, this Court upheld the prevailing
doctrine that the illegal sale of dangerous drugs
absorbs the illegal possession thereof except if
the seller was also apprehended in the illegal
5
possession of another quantity of dangerous
drugs not covered by or not included in the
illegal sale, and the other quantity of dangerous
drugs was probably intended for some future
dealings or use by the accused. Illegal
possession of dangerous drugs is therefore an
element of and is necessarily included in illegal
sale. Hence, convicting the accused with the
former does not violate his right to be informed
of the accusation against him for it is an element
of the latter.
In a similar manner, considering that
illegal possession is likewise an element of and
is necessarily included in illegal importation of
dangerous drugs, convicting appellants of the
former, if duly established beyond reasonable
doubt, does not amount to a violation of their
right to be informed of the nature and cause of
accusation against them. Indeed, where an
accused is charged with a specific crime, he is
duly informed not only of such specific crime but
also of lesser crimes or offenses included
therein.
The elements of illegal possession of
regulated drugs are as follows: (a) the accused
is in possession of an item or object which is
identified to be a regulated drug; (b) such
possession is not authorized by law; and (c) the
accused freely and consciously possessed the
regulated drug. The evidence on record clearly
established that appellants were in possession
of the bags containing the regulated drugs
without the requisite authority. As mentioned
previously, on the date of appellants’ arrest, the
apprehending officers were conducting a
surveillance of the coast of Ambil Island in the
Municipality of Looc, Occidental Mindoro, upon
being informed by the Municipality’s Barangay
Captain that a suspicious-looking boat was
within the vicinity. Not long after, they spotted
two (2) boats anchored side by side, the persons
on which were transferring cargo from one to the
other. Interestingly, as they moved closer to the
area, one of the boats hurriedly sped away.
Upon reaching the other boat, the police officers
found the appellants with several transparent
plastic bags containing what appeared to be
shabu which were plainly exposed to the view of
the officers. Clearly, appellants were found to be
in possession of the subject regulated drugs.
(People vs. Chi Chan Liu and Hui Lao Chung,
G.R. No. 189272, January 21, 2015, Peralta,
J.)
19. Decoy Solicitation.
The chain of custody is not established
solely by compliance with the prescribed
physical inventory and photographing of the
seized drugs in the presence of the enumerated
persons. The Implementing Rules and
th
Address: Unit 2, 4 Floor, España Place Building, 1139 Adelina Street corner España Boulevard
Sampaloc, Manila (Beside UST near Morayta Street)
* www.villasislawcenter.com / www.facebook.com/villasislawcenter / www.remediallawdoctrines.blogspot.com /
villasislawcenter@gmail.com / mvplawoffice@gmail.com
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
Regulations of R. A. No. 9165 on the handling
and disposition of seized dangerous drugs
states: x x x Provided, further, that non-
compliance with these requirements under
justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items are
properly preserved by the apprehending
officer/team, shall not render void and invalid
such seizures of and custody over said items.
(People vs. Rosauro, G.R. No. 209588,
February 18, 2015, Perez, J.)
20. What does “deliver” mean?
Under Article I, Section 3(k) of the same
statute, the term “deliver” means “any act of
knowingly passing a dangerous drug to another,
personally or otherwise, and by any means, with
or without consideration.” On the other hand,
“sell” as defined in Section 3(ii) refers to “any act
of giving away any dangerous drug and/or
controlled precursor and essential chemical
whether for money or any other consideration.”
To establish the guilt of an accused for
the illegal delivery of a dangerous drug, there
must be evidence that “(1) the accused passed
on possession of a dangerous drug to another,
personally or otherwise, and by any means; (2)
such delivery” is not authorized by law; and (3)
the accused knowingly made the delivery with or
without consideration.
The presentation of the marked money
is immaterial in this case since the crime of
illegal delivery of a dangerous drug can be
committed even without consideration or
payment. (People vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 194606,
February 18, 2015, Del Castillo, J.)
21. Chain of Custody.
In the prosecution of illegal possession
of dangerous drugs, the dangerous drug itself
constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense
and, in sustaining a conviction therefor, the
identity and integrity of the corpus delicti must
definitely be shown to have been preserved.
(Valencia vs. People, G.R. No. 198804,
January 22, 2014, Reyes, J.)
In both cases of illegal sale and illegal
possession of dangerous drugs, the prosecution
must show the chain of custody over the
dangerous drug in order to establish the corpus
delicti, which is the dangerous drug itself. The
chain of custody rule comes into play as a mode
of authenticating the seized illegal drug as
evidence.
A substantial gap in the chain of custody
renders the identity and integrity of the corpus
6
delicti dubious. (Lopez vs. People,G.R. No.
188653, January 29, 2014,Perez, J.)
First link of the chain, the seizure and
marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug
recovered from the accused by the
apprehending officer.
Second link of the chain, the turnover of
the illegal drug seized by the apprehending
officer to the investigating officer.
Third link of the chain, the turnover by
the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the
forensic chemist for laboratory examination.
Fourth link of the chain, the turnover and
submission of the marked illegal drug seized by
the forensic chemist to the court. (People vs.
Dahil and Castro, G.R. No. 212196, January
12, 2015, Mendoza, J.)
It has already been held that “the
infractions of the so-called Miranda rights render
inadmissible only the extrajudicial confession or
admission made during custodial
16
investigation.” Here, appellant’s conviction
was based not on his alleged uncounseled
confession or admission but on the testimony of
the prosecution witness. (People vs. Bio, G.R.
No. 195850, February 16, 2015,Del Castillo,
J.)
C. BOUNCING CHECKS LAW
[BAR Q. ‘86, ‘88, ‘90, ‘96, ‘02, ‘03,
’10, ‘14]
Payment even beyond the 5-day period
extinguishes criminal liability.
Although payment of the value of the
bounced check, if made beyond the 5-day
period provided for in B.P. Blg. 22, would
normally not extinguish criminal liability, the
aforementioned cases show that the Court
acknowledges the existence of extraordinary
cases where, even if all the elements of the
crime of offense are present, the conviction of
the accused would prove to be abhorrent to
society’s sense of justice. Just like in Griffith
and in Tan, petitioner should not be penalized
although all the elements of violation of B.P. Blg.
22 are proven to be present. The fact that the
issuer of the check had already paid the value of
the dishonored check after having received the
subpoena from the Office of the Prosecutor
should have forestalled the filing of the
Information in court. The spirit of the law which,
for B.P. Blg. 22, is the protection of the credibility
and stability of the banking system, would not be
th
Address: Unit 2, 4 Floor, España Place Building, 1139 Adelina Street corner España Boulevard
Sampaloc, Manila (Beside UST near Morayta Street)
* www.villasislawcenter.com / www.facebook.com/villasislawcenter / www.remediallawdoctrines.blogspot.com /
villasislawcenter@gmail.com / mvplawoffice@gmail.com
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
served by penalizing people who have evidently
made amends for their mistakes and made
restitution for damages even before charges
have been filed against them. In effect, the
payment of the checks before the filing of the
information has already attained the purpose of
the law. (Ariel T. Lim vs People, G.R. No.
190834, November 26, 2014, Peralta, J.)
D. THE ANTI-CHILD ABUSE LAW
1. Elements of sexual abuse.
In People v. Espinoza, it was held that
healed lacerations do not negate rape. In fact,
lacerations, whether healed or fresh, are the
best physical evidence of forcible defloration. x x
x Moreover, in the present case, Dr.Orais
clarified to the court that even if the alleged
sexual assault took place in the year 2005 or a
year after AAA was examined, the old healed
lacerations could still be found. (People vs.
Sanico, G.R. No. 208469, August 13, 2014,
Reyes, J.)
2. Higher penalty when victim is a child.
The slightest penetration into one’s
sexual organ distinguishes an act of
lasciviousness from the crime of rape. People v.
Bonaagua discussed this distinction: It must be
emphasized, however, that like in the crime of
rape whereby the slightest penetration of the
male organ or even its slightest contact with the
outer lip or the labia majora of the vagina
already consummates the crime, in like
manner, if the tongue, in an act of cunnilingus,
touches the outer lip of the vagina, the act
should also be considered as already
consummating the crime of rape through sexual
assault, not the crime of acts of
lasciviousness. Notwithstanding, in the present
case, such logical interpretation could not be
applied. It must be pointed out that the victim
testified that Ireno only touched her private part
and licked it, but did not insert his finger in her
vagina. This testimony of the victim, however, is
open to various interpretation, since it cannot be
identified what specific part of the vagina was
defiled by Ireno. Thus, in conformity with the
principle that the guilt of an accused must be
proven beyond reasonable doubt, the statement
cannot be the basis for convicting Ireno with the
crime of rape through sexual assault.
E. INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW
[BAR Q. ‘88, ‘89, ‘90, ‘91, ‘94, ‘99, ‘02,
‘03, ‘05, ‘07, ‘09, ’10, ‘14]
7
1. Parole; Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9346
provides that persons convicted of offenses
punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose
sentences will be reduced to reclusion
perpetua, shall not be eligible for parole
under Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended.
(People of the Philippines vs. Vicente
Candellada,701 SCRA 19, G.R. No. 189293,
July 10, 2013, Leonardo-De Castro, J.)

2. Effect of suspension of death penalty.

Under Article 266-B of the Revised

Penal Code, as amended, the imposable penalty
for qualified rape is death. With the effectivity,
however, of Republic Act No. 9346, entitled, “An
Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty
in the Philippines,” the imposition of the supreme
penalty of death has been prohibited. Pursuant
to Section 241 thereof, the penalty to be meted
out to appellant shall be reclusion perpetua.
(People vs. Tabayan, G.R. No. 190620, June
18, 2014.Perez, J.)

“Adonai is a stronghold for the

oppressed,

a Tower of Strength in times of

trouble,

those who know your name put

their trust in You,

for You have not abandoned

those who seek You, Adonai”.

Psalms 9:10-11

th
Address: Unit 2, 4 Floor, España Place Building, 1139 Adelina Street corner España Boulevard 8
Sampaloc, Manila (Beside UST near Morayta Street)
* www.villasislawcenter.com / www.facebook.com/villasislawcenter / www.remediallawdoctrines.blogspot.com /
villasislawcenter@gmail.com / mvplawoffice@gmail.com
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626