CRIMINAL LAW 2
Facts:
Madarang, together with Cirilo Juan, was charged
with violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act
No.6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as
amended by Presidential Decree No. 1675). The two
were arrested in an entrapment operation, conducted
by a combined team of Integrated National Police
(INP)/Naval Intelligence Bureau(NIB) composed of
Alejandro Basallo, Roberto Viloria, Eduardo Pascua
and Douglas Abalos of Poro Point, La Union, for
selling Eight Hundred (800) grams of dried Marijuana
with flowering tops to the poseur buyer for 600.00
inside a jeepney. They were apprehended and
brought to the police station in San Fernando, La
Union, where they were investigated, detained and
subsequently released. The Provincial Fiscal ordered
that
they be
re-arrested
wherein
Madarang
voluntarily surrendered and upon arraignment
pleaded not guilty.
Issue:
1. Whether or not the trial court erred in discrediting
the eyewitness testimony of Felix Biwang.
2. Whether or not the trial court erred in finding
him guilty of the crime charged beyond reasonable
doubt.
Ruling:
The lower court correctly rejected the testimony
of Biwang. By his own admission, he was too far
to hear what was being said by the persons inside
the jeepney. His version therefore cannot prevail
over that of the police officers who were actually
present in the vehicle when Madarang, in conspiracy
with Juan, negotiated the sale of the marijuana
leaves for 600.00 a kilo.
Madarangs defense that he only accompanied Juan
and that he was completely unaware that the plastic
bag actually contained illegal drugs cannot overcome
the positive and unequivocal statements of the two
peace officers that it was none other than Madarang
who personally fixed the price of the marijuana
Ownership
and
possession are
not
indispensable elements
of
the crime
under
consideration. The mere act of selling or even acting
as broker in a sale of marijuana and other prohibited
drugs
consummates
the
crime
under Section 4. When Madarang negotiated the sale
without authority of Juans marijuana leaves to
Viloria, he took a direct and active part in
the crime. His guilt has been established beyond
reasonable doubt.
PEOPLE VS. DE JESUS
Facts:
Carlito de Jesus (alias "Carling") appeals from the
decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 124 in
Caloocan City, convicting him in Criminal Case No. C21861 for violating Sec. 4 of Republic Act No. 6425
(Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 as amended) and in
Criminal Case No. C-21862 for violating Sec. 8 of the
same Act and sentencing him to:
(1) Life imprisonment-together with
all
the
accessory
penalties
provided by law-and a fine of
P30,000.00 in Criminal Case No.
21861; and
(2) TWELVE (12) Years and a fine of
P12,000.00 in Criminal Case No.
21862.
The two informations filed against the accused.
The prosecution's evidence upon which the lower
court based its finding of guilt was summarized by
the court as follows:
... Tipped of drug-trafficking at the
Bisig Ng Nayon area, a heaven for
drug users/pushers, the antinarcotics group of the Caloocan
City Police conducted a campaign
ISSUE:
Whether or not the court a quo erred in convicting
the accused on two separate informations (for
violation of section 4 and section 8, art. ii, r.a. 6425
as amended) despite the fact that the latter offense
is an essential element and inherent in the offense
for violation of section 4, art. 11 of r.a. 6425 and
therefore deemed absorbed in the former offense;
HELD:
0On the first assigned error, the appellant claims that
possession of marijuana as prohibited under Sec. 8 of
Republic Act No. 6425 is absorbed in the offense of
selling marijuana as prohibited in Sec. 4 of the same
Act. He, therefore, contends that there should have
been only one charge which is that of unlawful sale
of marijuana.
The fiscal filed two separate informations because
when the appellant was bodily searched, after he
was apprehended for selling 5 marijuana sticks, 32
more such sticks were found in his pants back
pocket. Thus, he was also charged for possession of
prohibited drugs.
The lower court justified conviction on the basis of
two informations by stating:
As a last-ditch effort to lighten the
resulting criminal liability, the
defense tried to convince the Court
that the charge in Criminal Case
No. 21861 has absorbed that in
Criminal
Case
No.
21862.
Considering the gravity of the
offenses charged-taking note of the
ill-effects of dangerous drugs and
the
proliferation
thereof-such
interpretation
should
not
be
countenanced. Use of prohibited
drugs is bad in itself. But pushing,
vending, selling or circulating the
same is worse. Such act is worse
than murder-and the perpetrator/
perpetrators thereof should be
CRIMINAL LAW 2
2|P a g e
CRIMINAL LAW 2
FACTS:
Sometime in 1996, the Police Assistance and
Reaction Against Crime (PARAC) was tasked to
implement a search warrant to a certain Berard Lim
for probably possessing MA HCI (Shabu). The team
was escorted to the unit by the security officer
(Punsaran), upon arrival at the place to be searched,
a male person naked from the waist up opened
the door, which was later identified as Quelnan. The
team presented the search warrant and proceeded
with the search. In the presence of Quelnan
and Punsaran, they found on top of a bedroom table
3 pieces of transparent plastic sachet containing
white crystalline substance which was later
examined as Shabu. The next day, Quelnan was
arrested for violation of Sec.16 Art. III of RA
6425.Quelnan in his defense averred that he is not
residing in the said unit, but he is the registered
owner of the said unit, which he lwased to Sung
Kok Lee beginning May 1996. That he was there
during the search for he was collecting the rent. That
he was forced to sign some documents at gun point,
handcuffed and brought to PARAC Office. Two days
later, he was brought to Makati Prosecutors Office
for inquest and a case was filed against him.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the search warrant was properly
enforced provided that he was not the subject of the
search warrant.Whether or not Quelnan was validly
arrested.
RULING:
Yes. There is no provision of law that requires the
search warrant must name the person who occupies
FACTS:
The information charged appellant with
illegal sale of shabu in violation of Section 5, Article II
of Republic Act No. 9165. In the course of the trial,
the prosecution alleged that a team comprised of
police officers was formed to conduct a buy-bust
operation to apprehend suspected drug peddlers.
The suspects have previously been under a weeklong surveillance after the police officers received
3|P a g e
ISSUE:
Is the non-presentation of the poseur-buyer
fatal to this case?
HELD:
Yes. In a prosecution for illegal sale of
dangerous drugs, the following must be proven: (a)
that the transaction or sale took place; (b) the
corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as
evidence; and (c) that the buyer and seller were
identified. What is material is the proof that the
transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with
the presentation in court of the prohibited or
regulated drug. The delivery of the contraband to
the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked
money consummate the buy-bust transaction
between the entrapping officers and the accused.
CRIMINAL LAW 2
FACTS:
In an Information dated 7 August 2002,
accused-appellant Bernardo Felizardo Nicolas, a.k.a.
Bernie, was charged with Violation of Section 5,
Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, for allegedly
having sold one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic
sachet containing 0.42 gram of white crystalline
substance which was found positive to the test for
methamphetamine
hydrochloride
(shabu),
a
dangerous drug, to PO2 Danilo S. Damasco.
4|P a g e
ISSUE:
Are the non-conduct of surveillance and the
absence of any agreement as regards the money to
be used in buying the shabu and as regards the
signal to inform the back-up policemen that the
transaction has been consummated essential to
establish the existence of a buy-bust operation?
HELD:
No. Settled is the rule that the absence of a
prior surveillance or test-buy does not affect
thelegality 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 case at bar, the buy-bust
operation was conducted without need of any prior
surveillance for the reason that the informant
accompanied the policemen to the person who is
peddling the dangerous drugs.
CRIMINAL LAW 2
HELD:
No. Pimentels
contention
is
valid.
Accordingly, Sec. 36 of RA 9165 is unconstitutional.
It is basic that if a law or an administrative rule
violates any norm of the Constitution, that issuance
is null and void and has no effect. The Constitution is
the basic law to which all laws must conform; no act
shall be valid if it conflicts with the Constitution. In
the discharge of their defined functions, the three
departments of government have no choice but to
yield obedience to the commands of the
Constitution. Whatever limits it imposes must be
observed.
The provision [n]o person elected to any public
office shall enter upon the duties of his office until he
has undergone mandatory drug test is not tenable
as it enlarges the qualifications. COMELEC cannot, in
the guise of enforcing and administering election
laws or promulgating rules and regulations to
implement Sec. 36, validly impose qualifications on
candidates for senator in addition to what the
Constitution prescribes. If Congress cannot require a
candidate for senator to meet such additional
qualification, the COMELEC, to be sure, is also
without such power. The right of a citizen in the
democratic process of election should not be
defeated by unwarranted impositions of requirement
not otherwise specified in the Constitution.
5|P a g e