RA 9165 – SALE AND DISTRIBUTION
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. DUMLAO, G.R. NO. 181599, AUGUST 20, 2008
The pertinent portion of Sec. 5, Art. II of Republic Act 9165 provides:
SEC. 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. – 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) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.
x x x x
In the instant case, appellant is charged with selling “shabu,” which is a dangerous drug. Section 3(ii), Art. I of Republic Act 9165 defines “selling” as “any act of giving away any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical whether for money or any other consideration.”
To sustain a conviction under this provision, the prosecution needs to establish sufficiently the identity of the buyer, seller, object and consideration; and, the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereof. What is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the substance seized as evidence. The commission of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs requires merely the consummation of the selling transaction, which happens the moment the buyer receives the drug from the seller. Settled is the rule that as long as the police officer went through the operation as a buyer and his offer was accepted by appellant and the dangerous drugs delivered to the former, the crime is considered consummated by the delivery of the goods.
PEOPLE VS. DARISAN, G.R. NO. 176151, JANUARY 30, 2009
The following are the elements of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs:
In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must first be established: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took place and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence. In a prosecution for illegal possession of a dangerous drug, it must be shown that (1) the accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug, (2) such possession is not authorized by law, and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug.
PEOPLE VS. CONCEPCION, G.R. NO. 178876, JUNE 27, 2008
Jurisprudence has firmly entrenched the following as elements in the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs: (1) the accused sold and delivered a prohibited drug to another, and (2) he knew that what he had sold and delivered was a dangerous drug. These two elements were clearly established in this case. The records show that appellants sold and delivered the shabu to the PDEA agent posing as a poseur-buyer. The plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance, which were seized and were found positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug, were identified and offered in evidence. There is also no question that appellants knew that what they were selling and delivering was shabu, a dangerous drug.
Settled is the rule that the absence of a prior surveillance or test buy does not affect the legality of the buy-bust operation. There is no textbook method of conducting buy-bust operations. The Court has left to the discretion of police authorities the selection of effective means to apprehend drug dealers. A prior surveillance, much less a lengthy one, is not necessary especially where the police operatives are accompanied by their informant during the entrapment. Flexibility is a trait of good police work. In the instant case, the entrapment or buy-bust operation was conducted without the necessity of any prior surveillance because the confidential informant, who was previously tasked by the buy-bust team leader to order dangerous drugs from appellant Alfredo Concepcion, accompanied the team to the person who was peddling the dangerous drugs.
The failure of the PDEA operatives to record the boodle money will not render the buy-bust operation illegal. The recording of marked money used in a buy-bust operation is not one of the elements for the prosecution of sale of illegal drugs. The recording or non-recording thereof in an official record will not necessarily lead to an acquittal as long as the sale of the prohibited drug is adequately proven. In the case at bar, PO2 Sistemio, the poseur buyer and PO2 Arojado testified as to how the shabu subject of the case was seized from appellants. Settled is the rule that in the prosecution for the sale of dangerous drugs, the absence of marked money does not create a hiatus in the evidence for the prosecution as long as the sale of dangerous drugs is adequately proven and the drug subject of the transaction is presented before the court. Neither law nor jurisprudence requires the presentation of any money used in the buy-bust operation. What is material to a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence. The prosecution duly established both in this case.
PEOPLE VS. LAGMAN, G.R. NO. 168695, DECEMBER 8, 2008
The essential elements of the crime of illegal possession of regulated drugs are the following: 1) the actual possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely or consciously possessed the said drug.
[Illegal possession of regulated drugs] is mala prohibita, and, as such, criminal intent is not an 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 exists when the drug is in the immediate physical possession or control of the accused. On the other hand, constructive possession exists 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. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
The finding of illicit drugs and paraphernalia in a house or building owned or occupied by a particular person raises the presumption of knowledge and possession thereof which, standing alone, is sufficient to convict.
PEOPLE VS. DELA CRUZ, G.R. NO. 182348, NOVEMBER 28, 2008
The elements in illegal possession of dangerous drug are: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. On the third element, we have held that the possession must be with knowledge of the accused or that animus possidendi existed with the possession or control of said articles. Considering that as to this knowledge, a person’s mental state of awareness of a fact is involved, we have ruled that:
Since courts cannot penetrate the mind of an accused and thereafter state its perceptions with certainty, resort to other evidence is necessary. Animus possidendi, as a state of mind, may be determined on a case-to-case basis by taking into consideration the prior or contemporaneous acts of the accused, as well as the surrounding circumstances. Its existence may and usually must be inferred from the attendant events in each particular case.
PEOPLE VS. MARTIN SIMON,
The final query is whether or not the Indeterminate Sentence Law is applicable to the case now before us. Apparently it does, since drug offenses are not included in nor has appellant committed any act which would put him within the exceptions to said law and the penalty to be imposed does not involve reclusion perpetua or death, provided, of course that the penalty as ultimately resolved will exceed one year of imprisonment. The more important aspect, however, is how the indeterminate sentence shall be ascertained. It is true that Section 1 of said law, after providing for indeterminate sentence for an offense under the Revised Penal Code, states that “if the offense is punished by any other law, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and he minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same”. We hold that this quoted portion of the section indubitably refers to an offense under a special law wherein the penalty imposed was not taken from and is without reference to the Revised Penal Code as discussed in the preceding illustrations, such that it may be said that the “offense is punished” under that law. There can be no sensible debate that the aforequoted rule on indeterminate sentence for offenses under special laws was necessary because of the nature of the former type of penalties under said laws which were not included or contemplated in the scale of penalties in Article 71 of the Code, hence there could be no minimum “within the range of he penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense,” as is the rule for felonies therein. In the illustrative examples of penalties in special laws hereinbefore provided, this rule applied, and would still apply, only to the first and last examples. Futhermore, considering the vintage of Act. 4103 as earlier noted, this holding is but an application and is justified under the rule of contemporanea exposition. Republic Act No. 6425, as now amended by Republic Act No. 7569, has unqualifiedly adopted the penalties under the Revised Penal Code in their technical signification and effects. In fact, for purposes of determining the maximum of said sentence, we have applied the provisions of he amended Section 20 of said law to arrive at prision correctional and Article 64 of the Code to impose the same in the medium period. Such offense, although provided for in a special law, is now in the effect punished by and under the Revised Code.
CULTIVATION
JURISPRUDENCE:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. RICARDO ALUNDAY, G.R. 181546, September 3, 2008
A perusal of Section 9, Art. II of R.A. No. 6425 shows that a violation exists when a person shall cultivate, plant or culture on any medium Indian hemp, opium poppy (papaver somniferum) or any other plant which may hereafter be classified as dangerous drug. Indeed, ownership of the land where the marijuana seedlings are planted, cultivated and cultured is not a requisite of the offense.
CHAIN OF CUSTODY
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. OBMIRANIS, G.R. NO. 181492, DECEMBER 16, 2008
In criminal prosecutions, fundamental is the requirement that the elemental acts constituting the offense be established with moral certainty as this is the critical and only requisite to a finding of guilt. In prosecutions involving narcotics, the narcotic substance itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction beyond reasonable doubt. It is therefore of prime importance that in these cases, the identity of the dangerous drug be likewise established beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, it must be established with unwavering exactitude that the dangerous drug presented in court as evidence against the accused is the same as that seized from him in the first place. The chain of custody requirement performs this function in that it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. ROSALES, G.R. NO. 177220, APRIL 24, 2009
In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be established: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took place; and (2) presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence. The existence of dangerous drugs is a condition sine qua non for conviction for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, it being the very corpus delicti of the crime. Central to this requirement is the question of whether the drug submitted for laboratory examination and presented in court was actually recovered from appellant. Hence, the Court has adopted the chain of custody rule.
As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness’ possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same. (Underscoring supplied)
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. RUIZ GARCIA, G.R. NO. 173480, FEBRUARY 25, 2009
A buy-bust operation gave rise to the present case. While this kind of operation has been proven to be an effective way to flush out illegal transactions that are otherwise conducted covertly and in secrecy, a buy-bust operation has a significant downside that has not escaped the attention of the framers of the law. It is susceptible to police abuse, the most notorious of which is its use as a tool for extortion. In People v. Tan, this Court itself recognized that “by the very nature of anti-narcotics operations, the need for entrapment procedures, the use of shady characters as informants, the ease with which sticks of marijuana or grams of heroin can be planted in pockets of or hands of unsuspecting provincial hicks, and the secrecy that inevitably shrouds all drug deals, the possibility of abuse is great. Thus, courts have been exhorted to be extra vigilant in trying drug cases lest an innocent person is made to suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug offenses.” Accordingly, specific procedures relating to the seizure and custody of drugs have been laid down in the law (R.A. No. 9165) for the police to strictly follow. The prosecution must adduce evidence that these procedures have been followed in proving the elements of the defined offense.
The chain of custody requirement is essential to ensure that doubts regarding the identity of the evidence are removed through the monitoring and tracking of the movements of the seized drugs from the accused, to the police, to the forensic chemist, and finally to the court. It is important enough as a concern that Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002 (which implements R.A. No. 9165) specifically defines chain of custody.
“Chain of Custody” means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and used in court as evidence, and the final disposition.
PEOPLE VS. MAGAT, G.R. NO. 179939, SEPTEMBER 29, 2008
R.A. No. 9165 had placed upon the law enforcers the duty to establish the chain of custody of the seized drugs to ensure the integrity of the corpus delicti. Thru proper exhibit handling, storage, labeling and recording, the identity of the seized drugs is insulated from doubt from their confiscation up to their presentation in court.
CA 142: AN ACT REGULATING THE USE OF ALIASES
PEOPLE VS. JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA, ET. AL., G.R. NO. 164368-69, APRIL 2, 2009
“A name or names used by a person or intended to be used by him publicly and habitually usually in business transactions in addition to his real name by which he is registered at birth or baptized the first time or substitute name authorized by a competent authority.” There must be, in the words of Ursua, a “sign or indication that the user intends to be known by this name (the alias) in addition to his real name from that day forth … [for the use of alias to] fall within the prohibition contained in C.A. No. 142 as amended.”
