COELI
CASE NO. 51 minimum of six (6) months rehabilitation in a government center for the first
CRIMES RELATED TO OPIUM AND OTHER PROHIBITED DRUGS
DELA CRUZ v. PEOPLE
FACTS:
 Corazon Absin and Charito Escobido filed a complaint to NBI. According to
them, Ariel Escobido (live-in partner of Corazon and son of Charito) was
picked up by police officers for allegedly selling drugs, that they were
instructed to proceed to the Police Office where they met PO2 Jaime D.
dela Cruz who demanded from them ₱40,000 in exchange for the release
of Ariel.
 A team was immediately formed to implement an entrapment operation.
Petitioner was later brought to the forensic laboratory of the NBI, he was
required to submit his urine for drug testing. It later yielded a positive
result. He denied the charges, testified that he was arrested allegedly for
extortion by NBI agents. He contended that :
o forensic laboratory examination was conducted despite the fact
that he was not assisted by counsel, in clear violation of his
constitutional right
o urine test had been admitted in spite of the lack of legal basis for its
admission
 Petitioner was charged with violation of Section 15, Article II of the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (RA 9165). RTC and CA
found him guilty.
ISSUE: Whether or not the drug test conducted upon the petitioner is legal.
RULING: NO.
Petitioner was arrested in the alleged act of extortion. “A person
apprehended or arrested” cannot literally mean any person apprehended or
arrested for any crime. The phrase must be read in context and understood in
consonance with Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act (R.A. No. 9165). Section
15 comprehends persons arrested or apprehended for unlawful acts listed
under Article II of the law. To make the provision applicable to all persons
arrested or apprehended for any crime not listed under Article II is tantamount
to unduly expanding its meaning.
In this case, SC failed to see how a urine sample could be material to the charge
of extortion.
Note (FOR READING ONLY): Section 15. Use of Dangerous Drugs. – A person
apprehended or arrested, who is found to be positive for use of any
dangerous drug, after a confirmatory test, shall be imposed a penalty of a
offense, subject to the provisions of Article VIII of this Act. If apprehended using
any dangerous drug for the second time, he/she shall suffer the penalty of
imprisonment ranging from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years and
a fine ranging from Fifty thousand pesos (₱50,000.00) to Two hundred thousand
pesos (₱200,000.00): Provided,That this Section shall not be applicable where the
person tested is also found to have in his/her possession such quantity of any
dangerous drug provided for under Section 11 of this Act, in which case the
provisions stated therein shall apply.
COELI
CASE NO. 52
CRIMES RELATED TO OPIUM AND OTHER PROHIBITED DRUGS
PEOPLE v. MORILLA
FACTS:
 Javier Morilla, Mayor Mitra, Willie Yang and Ruel Dequilla, who all belong to
an organized/syndicate crime group as they transported
methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) by means of two 2 motor
vehicles: a Starex van driven by Mayor Mitra and a municipal ambulance
driven by Morilla. They were caught during a checkpoint.
 During the trial, Mayor Mitra argued that he was without any knowledge of
the contents of the sacks and explained that he only accommodated the
request of a certain Ben Tan because the latter bought his fishing boat. The
other passenger of the ambulance, Yang, in his defense, did not bother to
inquire about the contents of the vehicle as he was merely an
accommodated passenger of the ambulance.
 Morilla insisted that he had no knowledge of the drugs, he thought what he
was transporting were wooden tiles and electronic spare parts. He argued
that the mere act of driving the ambulance on the date he was apprehended
was not sufficient to prove that he was part of a syndicated group involved
in the illegal transportation of dangerous drugs.
ISSUE: Whether or not intent or knowledge is material in determining the
culpability of an accused in drug cases.
RULING: NO.
His insistence that he was without any knowledge of the contents of the sacks
and he just obeyed the instruction of his immediate superior Mayor Mitra in
driving the said vehicle likewise bears no merit.
Morilla and Mayor Mitra were caught in flagrante delicto in the act of
transporting the dangerous drugs on board their vehicles. "Transport" as used
under the Dangerous Drugs Act means "to carry or convey from one place to
another." The very act of transporting shabu is malum prohibitum since it
is punished as an offense under a special law. The fact of transportation of
the sacks containing dangerous drugs need not be accompanied by proof
of criminal intent, motive or knowledge.
MAIN POINT: IN BOLD
COELI
CASE NO. 53
CRIMES RELATED TO OPIUM AND OTHER PROHIBITED DRUGS
PEOPLE v. ROLANDO LAYLO
FACTS:
 Rolando Laylo and Melitona Ritwal (Laylo’s live-in partner) attempted to
sell shabu to PO1 Angelito G. Reyes, commenced the commission of illegal
sale but did not perform all the acts of execution which would produce such
crime because PO1 Reyes introduced himself as policeman, arrested the
accused and confiscated 2 sachets from the latter.
 PO1 Reyes and PO1 Pastor, both wearing civilian clothes, were conducting
anti-drug surveillance operations at Binangonan, Rizal. While the police
officers were in front of a sari-sari store, Laylo and Ritwal approached them
and asked:
“Gusto mong umiskor ng shabu?”
PO1 Reyes replied, Bakit mayroon ka ba?
 Laylo then brought out two plastic bags containing shabu and told the
police officers, P200.00 each. Upon hearing this, the police officers
introduced themselves as cops. PO1 Reyes immediately arrested Laylo.
Ritwal tried to get away but PO1 Pastor caught up with her. PO1 Pastor then
frisked Ritwal and found another sachet of shabu in a SIM card case which
Ritwal was carrying. Laylo claimed that he was framed-up, that the police
officers planted shabu in his jacket.
 RTC gave credence to the testimonies of the police officers who were
presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner. Laylo
appealed because according to him, the police officers failed to preserve the
integrity of alleged seized shabu. CA affirmed RTC’s decision.
ISSUE: Whether or not Laylo can be convicted of attempted sale of dangerous
drugs.
RULING: YES.
The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are: (1) the
identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the
delivery of the thing sold and the payment.
Any attempt or conspiracy to commit the following unlawful acts shall be
penalized by the same penalty prescribed for the commission of the same
as provided under this Act. (Section 26(b), Article II of RA 9165)
Here, appellant intended to sell shabu and commenced by overt acts the
commission of the intended crime by showing the substance to PO1 Reyes and
PO1 Pastor. The sale was aborted when the police officers identified themselves
and placed appellant and Ritwal under arrest. From the testimonies of the
witnesses, the prosecution was able to establish that there was an attempt to
sell shabu. In addition, the plastic sachets were presented in court as evidence
of corpus delicti. Thus, the elements of the crime charged were sufficiently
established by evidence.
MAIN POINT: Where the sale was interrupted when the police officers
introduced themselves as cops and immediately arrested the accused and his
live-in partner, the sale was not consummated but merely attempted. Thus,
appellant was charged with attempted sale of dangerous drugs.
COELI
CASE NO. 54
ARTICLE 200: CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC MORALS
US v. CATAJAY | AUGUST 23, 1906
Disclaimer: The full text is so short, lacking substance, so I just shortened it.
The crime was not mentioned, only the setting.
FACTS:
 The trial court found be accused guilty of the crime of public scandal in
violation of the provisions of Article 441 of Penal Code. The acts complained
of were committed at night, in a private house, and at a time when no one
was present except the accused, the mistress of the house, and one
servant.
DECISION:
SC ruled that these circumstances do not constitute that degree of publicity
which is an essential element of the crime defined and penalized in article
441 of the Penal Code. Instead, the accused committed the offense defined and
penalized in No. 2 of the Article 571 of the Penal Code, and provides that a
penalty of from 1-10 days of arrest and a fine shall be imposed upon--
Those who, by exhibiting prints or engravings, or by means of other acts, shall
offend against good morals and custom without committing a crime. (No. 2, Art
571)

Since this is a lesser offense that the one charged in the complaint (in violation
of Art 441), SC found him guilty of a violation of the provisions of the said article
and, reversing the sentence of the trial court, imposed upon the accused, Jose
Catajay, the penalty of the ten days' imprisonment (arresto), and the payment of
a fine of 125 pesetas, and the costs of the trial in both instances.

MAIN POINT: When the act complained of was committed at night, in a private
house, and at a time when no one was present except the accused, the mistress
of the house, and one servant, these circumstances do not constitute the degree
of publicity which is an essential element of the crime.

(My comment: maybe the crime was ATTEMPTED RAPE, but not mentioned in the
case, only in this dissenting opinion.
Also, Art 441 is not from RPC, it’s from Old Penal Code that I cannot get a copy
of. :)

DISSENTING OPINION: TORRES, J.:

Granting that the facts of the case have been proved and not being possible to
convict the accused of the crime of attempted rape, or at least of that of "abusos
deshonestos," as defined in article 439 of the Penal Code, owing to the improper
qualification set forth in the complaint, in the judgment of the undersigned, and
taking into consideration the fact that the act offended against good morals and
customs, public and private, and not only the companion of the injured party in
the house but also her neighbors were informed and had notice of the act,
because the attempt was publicity made, therefore, I am of opinion that the
judgment appealed from should be affirmed, with the costs against the accused.