6/30/24, 1:19 AM People vs.

Lacerna y Cordero

Title
People vs. Lacerna y Cordero

Case Ponente Decision Date

G.R. No. 109250 PANGANIBAN, J Sep 4, 1997

Marlon Lacerna is convicted of illegal possession of prohibited drugs after the Supreme
Court rules that his right against warrantless search and seizure was not violated, but
acquitted of the charge of "giving away" drugs.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 109250)

Comprehensive

Facts:
On September 16, 1992, Marlon Lacerna y Aranador and Noriel Lacerna y Cordero were
charged before the Regional Trial Court of Manila for violating Section 4, Article II, in
relation to Section 21, Article IV of Republic Act 6425, as amended by Presidential
Decree No. 1675.
The case was called for arraignment on October 7, 1992. The accused appeared without
counsel but claimed to have engaged Atty. Kangleon.
The trial court provisionally appointed Atty. Libatique of the Public Attorney's Office as
counsel de oficio.
During the arraignment on October 28, 1992, Atty. Kangleon did not appear, and Atty.
Libatique assisted the accused, who pleaded not guilty.
After the trial, the court found Marlon Lacerna guilty beyond reasonable doubt but
acquitted Noriel Lacerna due to insufficient evidence.
Marlon Lacerna appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the trial court erred in its
interpretation of "giving away" drugs under RA 6425 and in not believing his claim of
ignorance about the marijuana in the plastic bag.
The Supreme Court ruled that although there was no probable cause for the initial stop
and search, the search was valid because Marlon consented to it.
The court acquitted Marlon of "giving away" drugs but found him guilty of illegal
possession of prohibited drugs.

Issue:
1. Was appellant's right against warrantless search and seizure violated?
2. Was the trial court correct in convicting appellant for "giving away to another" 18 blocks
of marijuana?

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/digest/people-v-lacerna-y-cordero?q=people+vs.+lacerna 1/2
6/30/24, 1:19 AM People vs. Lacerna y Cordero

3. May the appellant be held guilty of "illegal possession" of prohibited drugs?

Ruling:
1. No, appellant's right against warrantless search and seizure was not violated because
he consented to the search.
2. No, the trial court was incorrect in convicting appellant for "giving away to another" 18
blocks of marijuana.
3. Yes, the appellant may be held guilty of "illegal possession" of prohibited drugs.

Ratio:
The Supreme Court held that the search and seizure were valid because Marlon
Lacerna consented to the search, which is a recognized exception to the rule against
warrantless searches.
The court noted that although the police stopped the taxi on mere suspicion, they
sought and obtained Marlon's permission before conducting the search. This consent
validated the search, making the evidence obtained admissible in court.
Regarding the conviction for "giving away" drugs, the court clarified that merely
handing over the plastic bag containing marijuana to Noriel did not constitute "giving
away" as penalized under Section 4 of the Dangerous Drugs Act.
The court explained that "giving away" implies a transfer of ownership or a gift, which
was not the case here. The act of transferring the bag within the taxi did not meet the
legal definition of "giving away."
However, the court found Marlon guilty of illegal possession of prohibited drugs under
Section 8 of the Dangerous Drugs Act.
The evidence showed that Marlon was in possession of the plastic bag containing
marijuana, and his defense that he did not know the contents was unconvincing.
The court emphasized that possession of prohibited drugs is a malum prohibitum
offense, meaning that the mere act of possession is punishable regardless of intent.
The court also noted that Marlon's denial was insufficient to overcome the
presumption of possession, and the trial court's assessment of witness credibility was
given high respect.

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/digest/people-v-lacerna-y-cordero?q=people+vs.+lacerna 2/2