SPL- Dangerous Drugs Act TERESITA SUSON and ANTONIO FORTICH vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES GR NO.

152848; July 12, 2006 A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment which had repeatedly been accepted to be a valid means of arresting violators of the Dangerous Drugs Law; Elements in every Prosecution for Illegal Sale of Prohibited or Regulated Drugs. This court has already ruled that a A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment which had repeatedly been accepted to be a valid means of arresting violators of the Dangerous Drugs Law; In every prosecution for Illegal sale of prohibited or regulated drugs, the following elements must be established (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereof. In proving that the sale was consummated, the prosecution presented the poseur buyer SPO2 Patino. PACIFICO B. ARCEO, JR. vs PEEPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES GR NO. 142641; JULY 17, 2006 SPL BP.22 A person who, having sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank when he makes or draws and issues a check, shall fail to keep sufficient funds or to maintain a period of ninety (90) days from the date appearing thereon, for which reason it is dishonored by the drawee bank, shall be liable for violating the law on bouncing checks- sec 1 Of BP 22 provides: SECTION 1. Checks without sufficient funds. The 90 day provided in the law is not an element of the offense, neither does it discharge petitioner from his duty to maintain sufficient funds in the account within a reasonable time from the date indicated in the check. The presentment of the check to the drawee bank 120 days after its issue was still within the allowable period-Cenizals presentment of the check to the drawee bank 120 days (four months) after its issue was still within the allowable period. Petitioner was freed neither from the obligation to keep sufficient funds in his account nor from liability resulting from the dishonor of the check. The gravamen of the offense is the act of drawing and issuing the worthless checks, and not the fact of issuance or execution of the check. The elements of the offense are (1) the making, drawing and issuance of any check to apply to account or for value (2) knowledge of the maker, drawer or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment; and

(3) subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit, or dishonor of the check for the same reason and not the drawee, without not valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment. DAVID TAN vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and CAROLYN ZARAGOZA GR NO. 145006; AUGUST 30, 2006 BP 22 For the presumption to arise, the prosecution must prove the following (a) the check is presented within 90 days from the date of the check (b) the drawer or maker of the check receives notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee; and the drawer or maker of the check fias to pay the holder of the check the amount due thereon, or make arrangements for payment in full within 5 banking days after receiving notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee. In other words, the presumption is brought into existence only after it is proved that the issuer had received a notice of dishonor and that within five days from receipt thereof, he failed to pay the amount of the check or to make arrangements for its payment. The presumption or prima facie evidence as provided in this section cannot rise, if such notice of nonpayment by the drawee bank is not sent to the maker or drawer, or if there is no proof as to when such notice was received by the drawer, since there would be no way of reckoning the crucial 5-day period. Furthermore, the notice of dishonor must be in writing; a verbal notice is not enough. RUJJERIC PALAGANAS VS PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES GR NO> 165483; SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 Generic aggravating circumstances are those that generally apply to all crimes such as those mentioned in Article 14, par 1,2,3,4,5,6,9,10,14,18,19, and 20 of the Revised Penal Code. It has the effect of increasing the penalty for the crime to its maximum period, but it cannot increase the same to the next higher degree. It must always alleged and charged in the information and be proven during the trial in order to be appreciated. Moreover, it can be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance. On the other hand special aggravating circumstances are those which arise under special conditions to increase the penalty for the offense to its maximum period, but the same cannot increase the penalty to the next higher degree. Examples are quasi-recidivism under Article 160 and complex crimes under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. It does not change the character of the offense charged. It must always be alleged and charged in the information, and must be proven during the trial in order to be appreciated. Moreover, it cannot be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance. It is clear from the foregoing that the meaning and effect of generic and special aggravating circumstances are exactly the same except that in case of generic aggravating, the case CAN be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance whereas in the case of special aggravating circumstance, it CANNOT be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance.

With the passage of RA No. 8294 on June 1997, the use of an unlicensed firearm in murder or homicide is now considered as a SPECIAL aggravating circumstance and not a generic aggravating circumstance. PEOPLE VS TORRES GR NO. 170837; SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 The essential elements of the crime of illegal possession of regulated drugs are the following (a) the accused is found in possession of a regulated drugs (b) the person is not authorized by law or by duly constituted authorities; and the accused has knowledge that the said drug is a regulated drug. The element of illegal possession of prohibited drugs are as follows: (a) that the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug (b) such possession is not authorized by law, and (3) the accused freely or continuously possess the prohibited drug. The fact that the appellant was not in the residence when it was searched nor caught in flagrante delicto possessing the illicit drugs and paraphernalia does not dent the case of the prosecution. As a matter of law, when prohibited and regulated drugs are found in a house or other building belonging to and occupied by a particular person, the presumption arises that such person is in possession of such drugs in violation of law, and the fact of finding the same is sufficient to convict. Otherwise stated, the finding of the illicit drugs and paraphernalia in the house owned by the appellant raised the presumption of knowledge and, standing alone, was sufficient to convict. This court in People vs Tira, 430 SCRA 134 (2004) ruminated on the juridical concept of possession under Section 18 Art III of RA No 6425, as amended, and the evidence necessary to prove the said crime. The same principle applies to prohibited drugs XXX this crime is mala prohibita, and as such, criminal intent is not essential element. However the prosecution must prove that the accused had the intent to possess (animus posidendi) the drugs. Possession under the law, includes not only actual possession, but also constructive possession. Actual possession or control of the accused. On the other hand, constructive possession exist when the drug is under the dominion and control of the accused or when he has the right to exercise dominion and control over the place where it is found. 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. Thus conviction need not be predicated upon exclusive possession, and the showing of non-exclusive and any reasonable inference drawn therefrom. However, the prosecution must prove that the accused had knowledge of the existence and presence of the dug in the place under his control and dominion and the character of the drug. Since knowledge by the accused of the existence and character of the drugs in the place where he exercises dominion and control is an internal act, the same may be presumed from the fact that the dangerous drugs is in the house or place over which the accused has control or dominion, or within such premises in the absence of any

satisfactory explanation. PEOPLE VS GENOSA 419 SCRA 537 A battered woman has been defined as a woman who is repeatedly subjected to any forceful physical or psychological behavior by a man in order to force her to do something he wants her to do without concern for her rights. Battered woman include wives or woman in any form of intimate relationship with them. Furthermore, in order to be classified as battered woman, the couple must go through the battering cycle at least twice. Any woman may find herself in an abusive relationship with a man once. If it occurs a second time and she remains in the situation, she is defined as a battered woman. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VES HON MARCIAL EMPLEO, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch 9, Regional Trial Court, Dipolog City, DANTE MAH y CABILIN RA 6425 does not prescribe a single punishment for the various offenses enumerated in the law; RA 6425 enumerates the punishable acts and its corresponding penalty; It also specifies the particular drugs and corresponding quality in the imposition of penalty. The prosecution was correct in filing two separate Informations for the crimes of illegal possession of shabu and illegal possession of marijuana. Clearly, the legislature did not intend to lump these two separate crimes into just one crime of possession of dangerous drugs. Otherwise there would be no need to specify the different kinds of drugs and corresponding quantity in the application of the appropriate penalty. Multiple offenses can be committed under RA 6425 even if the crime are committed in the same place, at the same time, and by the same person. Thus, this Court has upheld rulings of the lower courts convicting an accused charged with two separate crimes of illegal possession of shabu and illegal possession of marijuana, even if the crimes were committed at the same time and in the same place. As ruled in People vs Tira, 430 SCRA 134 (2004) illegal possession of shabu and marijuana constitutes two separate crimes and therefore two informations should be filed. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS JOSE D. LARA @ JOSE KALBO GR NO. 171449; OCTOBER 23, 2006. Illegal Possession of Firearms; with the effectivity of Republic Act No. 8294 on July 1997, the use of an unlicensed firearm, in the commission of homicide or murder is no longer treated as a separate offense but only as a special aggravating circumstances Aggravating circumstance, inasmuch as the use if an unlicensed firearm is now

considered as a special aggravating circumstance which would not merit the imposition of the supreme penalty of death, the same must be specially alleged in the information. The penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua to death. Art 63 of the revised Penal Code states that the law prescribes penalty consisting of two indivisible penalties and the crime is neither attended by mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the lesser penalty shall be imposed. ELIZA ABUAN VS PEOPLS OF THE PHILIPPINES GR NO. 168773; OCTOBER 27, 2006 The elements of the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs are as follows: (a) the accused was in possession of the regulated drugs (b) the accused was fully and consciously aware of being in possession of the regulated drug; and the accused had no legal authority to possess the regulated drug. Possession may actual or constructive. In order to establish constructive possession, the People must prove that petitioner has dominion or control on either the substance or the premises where found. The state must prove adequate nexus between the accused and the prohibited substance. Possession of dangerous drugs constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of any satisfactory explanation of such possession. The burden of evidence is shifted to petitioner to explain the absence of animus possidendi PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS ALFREDO BON GR NO. 166401; OCTOBER 30, 2006 The purpose of the prescription of minimum and maximum period under the Indeterminate Sentence Law is to effect the privilege granted under the same law, for prisoners who have served the minimum penalty to be eligible for parole per the discretion of the Board of Indiscriminate Sentence. Thus convicts sentenced to suffer death penalty or life imprisonment are ineligible under that law, as without minimum or maximum periods. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS ROGER VILLANUEVA GR NO. 172116;OCTOBER 30, 2006 To sustain a condition under a single prosecution witness, such testimony needs only to establish sufficiently (1) the identity of the buyer, seller, object or consideration; and (2) the delivery of the things sold and payment thereof. Unlike under the repealed RA No. 6425 (1972) of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 where the imposable penalty depends on the quantity of the regulated drug involved, the foregoing provision now imposes the penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) to ten Million pesos (P10,000,000.00) for the sale trade, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution and transportation of shabu, a dangerous drug, regardless of

the quantity involved. SANTOS VS NACAYTUNA VS PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES GR NO. 171144; NOVEMBER 24, 2006 Violation of Section 3 (e) of RA No. 3019 requires proof of the following facts (1) the accused is a public officer discharging administrative or official functions or private persons charged in conspiracy with them; (2) the public officer committed the prohibited act during the performance of his official duty or in relation to his public position; (3) the public officer acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence; and (4) his action caused undue injury to the government or any private party, or gave any party any unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference to such parties. Resignation is the act of giving up or the act of an officer by which he declines his office and renounces the further right to use it, and to constitute a complete and operative resignation from public office, there user be (a) an intention to relinquish a part of the term (b) an act of relinquishment, and an acceptance by the proper authority PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS SAIDMIN MACABALANG GR NO> 168694; NOVEMEBER 27, 2006 It is not surprising for a police officer to use his own money during the buy-bust operation-- sch use of money does not adversely affect the case against the accused. There is no requirement that the police must apply fluorescent powder to the buybust money to prove the commission of the offense; there is no law or rule of evidence requiring the use of fluorescent powder or the taking of the culprit's fingerprints from the bag containing the shabu. What is material is the delivery of the prohibited drug to the buyer which in this case, was sufficiently proved by the prosecution through the testimony of the poseur-buyer and the presentation of the Articles itself before th court. Besides, the money was already marked by the poseur buyer with his initials CG. Neither is fingerprints a requirement in buy-0bust operations. There is no law or rule of evidence requiring the use of fluorescent powder or the taking of the culprits fingerprints from the bag containing the shabu. MARIANITO VS VICTORIANO VS PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES GR NO. 171322-24;NOVEMBER 30, 2006 T hold the person liable under this section, the concurrence of the following elements must be established beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution (1) that the accused ia a public officer or a private person charged in conspiracy with the former; (2) that said public officer commits the prohibited acts during the performance of his official duties or in relation to his public position (3) that he

causes undue injury to any party, where the government or a private party; and (4) that the public officer has acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.