RA 9165 Drugs Law Notes

You might also like

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 2

RA 9165

Buy-bust Operation (Sec 5)


...

We therefore stress that the "objective" test in buy-bust operations demands that the details of the purported
transaction must be clearly and adequately shown. This must start 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 drug subject of the sale. The manner by which the initial contact was made,
whether or not through an informant, the offer to purchase the drug, the payment of the "buy-bust" money, and the
delivery of the illegal drug, whether to the informant alone or the police officer, must be the subject of strict
scrutiny by courts to insure that law-abiding citizens are not unlawfully induced to commit an offense. Criminals
must be caught but not at all cost. At the same time, however, examining the conduct of the police should not
disable courts into ignoring the accused’s predisposition to commit the crime. If there is overwhelming evidence of
habitual delinquency, recidivism or plain criminal proclivity, then this must also be considered. Courts should look
at all factors to determine the predisposition of an accused to commit an offense in so far as they are relevant to
determine the validity of the defense of inducement. (People vs De Guzman, G.R. No. 151205)

Elements (Sec 5)

The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller,
the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material to
the 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 evidence of corpus delicti. (People vs Del Monte, G.R. No. 179940)

Elements (Sec 11)

The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal possession of dangerous drugs 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.[19]
Elucidating on the nature of this offense, the Court in People v. Tira wrote: x x x This crime 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. (People vs
Gutierrez, G.R. No. 177777)

Actual vs. Constructive Possession

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 exits 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. (People vs Huang Zhen Hua, G.R. No. 139301)

Intent to possess

Thus, conviction need not be predicated upon exclusive possession, and a showing of non-exclusive possession
would not exonerate the accused. Such fact of possession may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence and
any reasonable inference drawn therefrom. However, the prosecution must prove that the accused had knowledge
of the existence and presence of the drug 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 drug 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 Huang Zhen Hua, G.R. No. 139301)

Presumption of intent to possess

In the case at bar, appellant was caught in actual possession of a prohibited drug which he could not show was duly
authorized by law. Having been caught in flagrante delicto, there is a prima facie evidence of animus possidendi on
appellant’s part. As held by this Court in U.S. v. Bandoc, the finding of a dangerous drug in the house or within the
premises of the house of the accused is prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi and is enough to
convict in the absence of a satisfactory explanation. (People vs Danila Cruz, G.R. No 185381)

Bondad vs. People (Sec 21)

IN FINE, as the failure to comply with the aforesaid requirements of the law compromised the identity of the items
seized, which is the corpus delicti of each of the crimes charged against appellant, his acquittal is in order. (Bondad
vs People, G.R. No 173804)

Preservation of Integrity of Seized Items

It is very clear from the language of the law that there are exceptions to the requirements. Therefore, contrary to
appellant’s assertions, Sec. 21 need not be followed with pedantic rigor. It has been settled that non-compliance
with Sec. 21 does not render an accused’s arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from the accused
inadmissible. What is essential is "the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as
the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused." (Danilo Cruz case)
* Follow Sec 21 to preserve the integrity of the items

Chain of Custody

As held by the Court in Malillin v. People, the testimonies of all persons who handled the specimen are important
to establish the chain of custody. Thus, the prosecution offered the testimony of PO3 Arago, the police officer who
first handled the dangerous drug. The testimony of P/SInsp. Fermindoza, who conducted the examination on the
dangerous drug, was, however, dispensed with after the public prosecutor and the defense counsel stipulated that
the specimens submitted tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride and that the said specimens were
regularly examined by the said witness. (Danilo Cruz case)

People vs Marcelino

Here, the chain of custody was established through the following links: (1) SPO1 Dela Cruz marked the seized
sachet with "MDC-1" for the sachet that was the subject of the buy-bust, and "MDC-2" for the sachet found on
accused-appellant’s person; (2) a request for laboratory examination of the seized items "MDC-1" and "MDC-2"
was signed by Police Senior Inspector Arthur Felix Asis; (3) the request and the marked items seized were received
by the Bulacan Provincial Crime Laboratory; (4) Chemistry Report No. D-628-02 confirmed that the marked items
seized from accused-appellant were shabu; and (5) the marked items were offered in evidence as Exhibits "C-1"
and "C-2." (People vs Marcelino, G.R. No 189278)

You might also like