Republic Act No. 9165 June 7, 2002

REPUBLIC ACT NO.
9165
June 7, 2002
AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS

DRUGS ACT OF 2002, REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6425,
OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF
1972, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES
GROUP 6
DAQUIZ, RALPH RANDEL

EMPANIA, DONNA JANE
FLORESCA, JOSE EMMANUEL
MARAÑON, MAILA
LIWAG, LLOYD
TAMESIS, EDWIN
TUTOR, ELMER
CORPUZ, CAMILLE
History of R.A. 9165
• 1972 – Republic Act 6425, otherwise known as the “Dangerous
Drugs Act of 1972” was approved on March 30, 1972
• Presidential Decree No. 44 was promulgated, amending RA 6425,

and the Dangerous Drugs Board was also organized on November
14, 1972
• Department of Health, Department of Social Service and

Development, Department of Education, Culture and Sports,
Department of Justice, Department of National Defense,
Department of Finance and the National Bureau of Investigation
– formed part of the DDB
• Presidential Proclamation No. 1192 declaring every second week

of November of every year as Drug Abuse Prevention and Control
Week was also promulgated.
• 1974 – Inter-Agency Committee on
Drug Abuse Prevention Education
• Colombo Plan Drug Advisory
Programme funded the First
National Workshop on Drug Abuse
Prevention Education
• 1982 – procedural amendment of
RA 6425
• 1995 – “Oplan Iwas Droga” was
launched along with a mascot
named KID Listo
• “Mamamayan Ayaw sa Droga” or MAD – a movement organized by
concerned citizens
• National Drug Law Enforcement and Prevention Coordinating Center

was created by virtue of Executive Order No. 61 in January 1999
• 1998 – the five pillar global drug control approach: Drug Supply
Reduction, Drug Demand Reduction, Alternative Development, Civic
Awareness and Response, and Regional and International
Cooperation
• 2002 – the promulgation of Republic Act 9165 or “Comprehensive

Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002”
• RA 9165:
– This Act which is a consolidation of Senate Bill No. 1858 and House Bill No.
4433 was finally passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives on
May 30, 2002 and May 29, 2002, respectively.
• Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) was created
for the efficient and effective law enforcement of all the
provisions on dangerous drugs and/or precursors and
essential chemicals as provided in R.A. No.9165
• Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) is the policy-making and
strategy-formulating body in the planning and formulation
of policies and programs on drug prevention and control
pursuant to RA 9165
• R.A. No. 9165 abolishes the drug enforcement units of the
Philippines National Police (PNP)
Malum Prohibitum
• Common misconception: mala in se crimes are found in
RPC while mala prohibita crimes are provided in special
penal laws (Dungo v. People, G.R. No. 209464, July 1, 2015)
• Mala in se if the punishable act or omission is immoral
itself; Mala prohibita, not immoral itself but there is a
statute prohibiting its commission by reason of public
policy
• Acts that constitute a violation of RA 9165, is a malum
prohibitum. It is a wrongful act because it is prohibited by
law.
Dangerous Drugs
• R.A. 6425 – prohibited or regulated drugs were those
listed in the law as such and “other drugs or other
compounds which produce physiological effects of a
narcotic or hallucinogenic drug” or other similar effects
• R.A. 9165 - those listed in the Schedules annexed to the
1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, as amended
by the 1972 Protocol, and in the Schedules annexed to
the 1971 Single Convention on Psychotropic Substances
as enumerated in the attached annex which is an
integral part of this Act.
Unlawful Acts under Sec. 4 to 19
• Section 4. Importation
• Section 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery,
Distribution and Transportation
• Section 6. Maintenance of a Den, Dive or Resort.
• Section 7. Employees and Visitors of a Den, Dive or Resort.
• Section 8. Manufacture
• Section 9. Illegal Chemical Diversion
• Section 10. Manufacture or Delivery of Equipment, Instrument,
Apparatus, and Other Paraphernalia
• Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs
• Section 12. Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and
Other Paraphernalia
• Section 13. Possession of Dangerous Drugs During Parties, Social
Gatherings or Meetings
• Section 14. Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and
Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs During Parties, Social
• Section 15. Use of Dangerous Drugs
• Section 16. Cultivation or Culture of Plants Classified as Dangerous
Drugs or are Sources Thereof
• Section 17. Maintenance and Keeping of Original Records of
Transactions
• Section 18. Unnecessary Prescription of Dangerous Drugs
• Section 19. Unlawful Prescription of Dangerous Drugs
Sec. 4 IMPORTATION
• Pushing activity under Sec. 4
1. Importation
Sec. 4 IMPORTATION
• Importation of:
1. Dangerous drug
 Life imprisonment to death and fine of P500,000 to P10,000,000
2. Controlled precursors and essential chemical

 12 years and 1 day to 20 years and fine of P100,000 to P500,000
3. Protector/Cuddler
Sec. 4 IMPORTATION
• Aggravating circumstance
1. Importation through the use of diplomatic
passport, diplomatic facilities or any other
means involving his/her official status intended
to facilitate the unlawful entry of the same.
2. Any person who organizes, manages, or acts as a

“financier”.
Sec. 4 IMPORTATION
• Elements of Sec. 4
1. The offender imports dangerous drugs or
controlled precursors and essential chemicals
2. That this activity is not authorized by law
3. That offender knows that what he is dealing with

is dangerous drugs.
Sec. 4 IMPORTATION
• Ingredient of Illegal Importation
1. That the ship came from a foreign place
2. That the ship enters the Philippine waters with

intent to unload the dangerous drugs therein.
Sec. 4 IMPORTATION
1. That the ship came from a foreign place
• Question:
 What if the ship came from Olongapo to
Zamboanga, can the accused be held liable for
importation?
Sec. 4 IMPORTATION
• Question:
What if the vessel carrying the dangerous drugs is
just passing through local ports, can the accused
be held liable for importation?
Sec. 4 IMPORTATION
• Question:
What if the vessel carrying the dangerous drugs is
already anchored in a local port, can the accused
be held liable for importation?
Sec. 5 TRANSPORTATION, SALE, DISTRIBUTION
AND OTHER PUNISHABLE ACTS
• Pushing activity under Sec. 5
1. Transportation
2. Selling
3. Distribution
4. Trade
5. Administering
6. Dispensing
7. Delivery
8. Giving away to another or donation
9. Dispatching in Transit
10. Brokerage
• Punishable acts under Sec. 5
1. Dangerous drug

• Aggravating Circumstances:
1. Punishable act transpire within 100 meters from the school
2. Use minors or mentally incapacitated individuals as runners, couriers

and messengers, or in any other capacity directly connected to the
dangerous drug
3. Victim of the offense is a minor or a mentally incapacitated

individual, that result to the proximate cause of death of a victim
thereof.
4. Any person who organizes, manages or acts as a "financier”.

• Elements of Sec. 5
1. The offender transports, delivers, sells, trades,
administers, dispenses, gives away to another,
distributes, dispatches in transit, dangerous drugs or
controlled precursors and essential chemicals
2. That this activity is not authorized by law
3. That offender knows that what he is dealing with is

dangerous drugs.
• Ingredient of Transportation
1. That the accused carried or moved dangerous
drug from one place to another
2. That the accused intended to transport it.

• Quantity of drug being transported
 Although transportation of dangerous drug can be
committed “regardless of the quantity of the drug”,
it is submitted that the offender may be charged
with and convicted of possession of dangerous drug
if the quantity of the drug being transported is not
considerable or commercial.
 Transportation of non-commercial quantity of the drug is
an indication of that the transporter is just a user rather
than a pusher. Hence, it is only proper to convict him of
the lesser crime of possession.
• Quantity of drug being transported
Convicted of Transportation Convicted of Possession

5.6 kilos of Marijuana 0.23 grams of Marijuana
(People v. Burton) (Sales v. People)
13.96 grams of Shabu 0.1216 grans of Shabu
(People v. Dimaano) (Asuncion v. Court)
1.6 kilos of Heroin
(People v. Jones)
1.1 kilos of Marijuana
(People v. Claudio)
• Selling
 It is defined as any act of giving away any dangerous drug
and/or controlled precursors and essential chemical
whether for money or any other consideration.
• Ingredient of Selling
1. That there must be agreement to sell dangerous drug for
money or any other consideration
2. Offender delivers the dangerous drug to the buyer.

1. That there must be agreement to sell dangerous
drug for money or any other consideration
• Question
What if there is an agreement to sell drugs and
the drugs has been delivered but no the money
actually delivered by the buyer, is there a
consummated sale?
1. That there must be agreement to sell dangerous
drug for money or any other consideration
• Question
If there is already a consummated sale, is the
buyer criminally liable?
2. Offender delivers the dangerous drug to the
buyer.
• Question
What if the sale was cancelled prior to the delivery
of drugs, is the seller and/or buyer criminally
liable?
2. Offender delivers the dangerous drug to the
buyer.
• Question
Is constructive delivery sufficient to consummate
the sale?
• Prosecution for Sale
1. That the transaction or sale took place
2. The corpus delicit or the illicit drug was

presented as evidence
3. That the buyer and seller were identified

Sec. 5 TRANSPORTATION, SALE, DELIVERY AND
OTHER PUNISHABLE ACTS
• Delivery
 Is defined as any act of knowingly passing a
dangerous drug to another, personally or otherwise,
and by any means, with or without consideration.
• Ingredient of Delivery
1. The accused passed on possession of the dangerous
drugs to another, personally or otherwise
• Ingredient of Delivery
1. The accused passed on possession of the
dangerous drugs to another, personally or
otherwise
• Question
What if there is no recipient of the dangerous
drug, is the accused criminally liable?
• Give away
Defined as to make a present of, to donate, or to
make a sacrifice.
• Disposition of dangerous drugs with consideration is

sale. On the other hand, disposition of dangerous
drugs without consideration is act of giving away.
• Distribution
A person found to have been distributing
dangerous drugs to others is committing illegal
distribution.
• Trading
Is transactions involving the illegal trafficking of
dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors and
essential chemicals using electronic devices
whether for money or any other consideration.
• Administer
Is any act of introducing any dangerous drug into
the body of any person, with or without his/her
knowledge, by injection, inhalation, ingestion or
other means, or of committing any act of
indispensable assistance to a person administering
a dangerous drug to himself/herself unless
administered by a duly licensed practitioner for
purposes of medication.
• Dispense
Is any act of giving away, selling, distributing
medicine or any dangerous drug with or without
prescription.
• Broker
Means to act as agent in arranging any of these
transactions; it refers to an agent employed to
make bargain and contracts for compensation; or
a middleman or negotiator between contracting
parties; or a person whose business is to bring
seller and purchaser together.
Sec. 6 MAINTENANCE OF A DEN, DIVE OR
RESORT
• Maintenance of a Den, Dive or Resort
1. Dangerous Drug
2. Controlled Precursor and Essential Chemical

RESORT
• Aggravating Circumstance
1. Where any dangerous drug is administered, delivered
or sold to a minor who is allowed to use the same in
such place.
2. Should any dangerous drug be the proximate cause of

the death of a person using the same in such den,
dive or resort.

“financier”.
RESORT
• Den, Dive or Resort
 Is a place where any dangerous drug and/or
controlled precursor and essential chemical is
administered, delivered, stored for illegal purposes,
distributed, sold or used in any form.
• Question
 If a visitor would use in an office on single occasion,
is the owner of the office liable for maintaining a
den, dive or resort?
RESORT
• Offender in the maintenance of a Den, Dive
or Resort
1. Maintainer or Operator
 Person maintaining the den, dive, or resort.
2. Owner
 If he intentionally use his property as such.
RESORT
• The Den, Dive or Resort will confiscated if the
following requisites are present:
1. That the criminal complaint specifically alleges that
such place is intentionally used in the furtherance of
the crime;
2. That the prosecution proves such intent on the part of

the owner to use the property for such purpose; and
3. That the owner is included as an accused in the

criminal complaint.
Sec. 7 Employees and Visitors of a Den,
Dive or Resort
• Employees and Visitors of the Den, Dive or
Resort
12 years and 1 day to 20 years and fine of
P100,000 to P500,000
Dive or Resort
• Employees of Den, Dive or Resort
Will be criminally liable provided that they are
aware of the nature of the place as such.
They are the caretaker, helper, watchman, lookout,

and other persons employed by the maintainer,
owner and/or operator, with or without
compensation in connection of the operation
thereof.
Dive or Resort
• Visitor of Den, Dive or Resort
Will be criminally liable provided that they are
aware of the nature of the place as such and shall
knowingly visit the same.
Dive or Resort
• Question
“A” asked “B” to join their group for a “session”.
Thinking that it was for Mahjong session, “B”
agreed. Upon reaching “A’s” house, “B” discovered
that it was actually shabu session. At that precise
time, the place was raided by the police, and B
was among those arrested. Can B held liable as
visitor of den, dive or resort?
Sec. 8 Manufacture
• Manufacture of:
1. Dangerous drug

Sec. 8 Manufacture
• Aggravating Circumstances:
1. Any phase of the manufacturing process was
conducted in the presence or with the help of
minor/s:
2. Any phase or manufacturing process was established

or undertaken within one hundred (100) meters of a
residential, business, church or school premises;
3. Any clandestine laboratory was secured or protected

with booby traps;
Sec. 8 Manufacture
• Aggravating Circumstance:
4. Any clandestine laboratory was concealed with
legitimate business operations; or
5. Any employment of a practitioner, chemical

engineer, public official or foreigner.

“financier”.
Sec. 8 Manufacture
• Manufacture
Is the production, preparation, compounding or
processing of any dangerous drug and/or
controlled precursor and essential chemical.
Planting is just a part of the manufacturing

process or preparation of dangerous drugs; hence,
cultivation of the plant as a source of dangerous
drugs is absorbed in the crime of manufacture of
dangerous drugs.
Sec. 8 Manufacture
• Clandestine Laboratory
 Is any facility used for the illegal manufacture of any
dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and
essential chemical.
• Laboratory equipment
 Refers to the paraphernalia, apparatus, material or
appliances when used, intended for use or designated
for use in the manufacture of any dangerous drugs
and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals.
Sec. 8 Manufacture
• Any of the following is a prima facie proof of
manufacture of any dangerous drug:
1. The presence of controlled precursor and
essential chemical in the clandestine laboratory;
and
2. The presence of laboratory equipment in the
clandestine laboratory.
Sec. 8 Manufacture
• If there are controlled precursor and essential
chemicals found in a clandestine laboratory, the
offender may be charged:
1. With the crime of manufacture of controlled
precursors and essential chemical
 If evidence will show that such chemical is being
manufactured therein; or
2. With the crime of manufacture of dangerous drug

 If evidence will show that such chemical is being used to
manufacture such dangerous drug.
Sec. 9 ILLEGAL CHEMICAL DIVERSION
• Chemical Diversion
 The sale, distribution, supply or transport of legitimately
imported, in-transit, manufactured or procured
controlled precursors and essential chemicals, in diluted,
mixtures or in concentrated form, to any person or entity
engaged in the manufacture of any dangerous drug.
• Penalty
 12 years and 1 day to 20 years and fine of P100,000 to
P500,000.
• Element of the crime of chemical diversion:

1. A controlled precursors and essential chemicals
were legitimately imported, in-transit,
manufactured or procured; and
2. The controlled precursors and essential

chemicals were sold, distributed, supplied or
transported to a person or entity engaged in the
manufacture of any dangerous drug.

1. A controlled precursors and essential chemicals
were legitimately imported, in-transit,
manufactured or procured; and
• Question
What if the controlled precursors and essential
chemicals were not legitimately procured, were
the accused criminally liable if they sell, distribute,
supply or transport them?
2. The controlled precursors and essential chemicals were

sold, distributed, supplied or transported to a person or
entity engaged in the manufacture of any dangerous
drug.
 Proof that the manufacturer actually used there

controlled precursors and essential chemicals in
manufacturing dangerous drugs is not necessary to
establish this crime.
Sec. 10 MANUFACTURE OR DELIVERY OF DRUG
PARAPHERNALIA
• Elements of manufacture or delivery of drug
paraphernalia:
1. That the offender delivers, possess with intent to
deliver, or manufacture with intent to deliver
equipment, instrument, apparatus and other
paraphernalia for dangerous drugs; and
• Question
 What if the accused possess the paraphernalia without
intent to deliver, can he be held criminally liable?
PARAPHERNALIA
paraphernalia:
2. That the offender knows or under circumstances

reasonably should know that:
A. It will be used to plant, propagate , cultivate, grow, harvest,

manufacture, compound, convert, produce, process, prepare,
test, analyze, pack, repack, store, contain or conceal any
dangerous drug and/or controlled precursors and essential
chemical; or

PARAPHERNALIA
paraphernalia:
2. That the offender knows or under circumstances
reasonably should know that:
B. It will be used to inject, ingest, inhale or otherwise

introduce into the human body a dangerous drug.
 6 months to 4 years and fine of P10,000 to P50,000

PARAPHERNALIA
• Aggravating circumstance:
1. Uses a minor or a mentally incapacitated to
deliver such equipment, instrument, apparatus
and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs.
Sec. 11 Possession of Dangerous Drugs
• Possession of dangerous drugs in the following
quantities is punishable by Life imprisonment to death
and fine of P500,000 to P10,000,000:
1. 10 grams or more of opium;
2. 10 grams or more of morphine;
3. 10 grams or more of heroin;
4. 10 grams or more of cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride;
5. 50 grams or more of methamphetamine hydrochloride or
"shabu";
6. 10 grams or more of marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil;
• Possession of dangerous drugs in the following quantities is
punishable by Life imprisonment to death and fine of
P500,000 to P10,000,000:
7. 500 grams or more of marijuana; and
8. 10 grams or more of other dangerous drugs such as, but not
limited to:
 methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDA) or "ecstasy”,
 paramethoxyamphetamine (PMA),
 trimethoxyamphetamine (TMA),
 lysergic acid diethylamine (LSD),
 gamma hydroxyamphetamine (GHB), and
 those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives

quantities is punishable by Life imprisonment
and fine of P400,000 to P500,000:
1. 10 grams or more but less than 50 grams of
methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu"
quantities is punishable by 20 years and 1 day to
life imprisonment and fine of P400,000 to
P500,000:
1. 5 grams or more but less than 10 grams of:
 opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride,
marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine
hydrochloride or "shabu", or other dangerous drugs such as,
but not limited to, MDMA or "ecstasy", PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB,
and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and
their derivatives

quantities is punishable by 20 years and 1 day
to life imprisonment and fine of P400,000 to
P500,000:
2. 300 grams or more but less than 500 grams of
marijuana

to 20 years and fine of P300,000 to P400,000:
1. Less than 5 grams of:
 opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine
hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil,
methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu", or other
dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or
"ecstasy", PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly
designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives

to 20 years and fine of P300,000 to P400,000:
2. Less than 300 grams of marijuana.
• Possession
Has been defined to be the detention or
enjoyment of a thing, which a man holds or
exercises, by him. Self or another who keeps or
exercises it in his name.
• 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.
• 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.
• Elements of illegal possession of dangerous

drugs:
1. The offender is in possession of an dangerous
drugs
2. Such possession is not authorized by law
3. The accused freely and consciously possessed
the dangerous drugs.
• Elements of illegal possession of dangerous
drugs:
1. The offender is in possession of an dangerous drugs
• Question
 When an accused noticed an approaching police
officers, he then dropped the sachet of containing
dangerous drugs that he was holding. Can he be
convicted of for possession under Sec. 11?
• To make a person liable for illegal possession

of dangerous drug it is necessary to
demonstrate
1. The occupancy or taking
2. The intent to possess (animus possidendi)
• Question
 “A” and his fiancée “B” were walking in plaza when
they met a group of policeman who had earlier been
tipped off that A was in possession of prohibited
drugs. Upon seeing the policemen, A handed a
sachet containing shabu to B, telling her to hide it in
her handbag. The policemen saw B placing the sachet
inside her bag. If B was unaware that A was a drug
user or that what was inside the sachet given to her
was shabu, is he nonetheless criminally liable?
• Presumption
Proof that the accused was in possession of a
dangerous drug (1st element) give rise to the
disputable presumption that he is not authorized
to possess such drugs (2nd element), and that he
knew that what he was in possess was a
dangerous drug (3rd element).
• Question:
Is the possession of controlled precursor and
essential chemical a crime?
• General Rule:
 Illegal possession is an element of and is necessarily
included in the illegal sale of prohibited drugs.
• Exception:
 The prevailing doctrine is that possession of dangerous
drugs is absorbed in the sale thereof, except where the
seller is further apprehended in possession of another
quantity of the prohibited drugs not covered by or included
in the sale and which are probably intended for some future
dealings or use by the seller.
• Question
A policeman, acting as a poseur buyer, purchased
from “B” 10 sticks of marijuana and paid P500.
After the sale was consummated, the policemen
arrested “B” and a search was conducted. Found
were 356 grams of marijuana seeds, 932 grams
marijuana fruiting tops and 50 sticks of marijuana
cigarettes. What offense or offenses did B
commit?
• Section 4. Importation
• Section 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation,
Delivery, Distribution and Transportation
• Section 6. Maintenance of a Den, Dive or Resort.
• Section 7. Employees and Visitors of a Den, Dive or Resort.
• Section 8. Manufacture
• Section 9. Illegal Chemical Diversion
• Section 10. Manufacture or Delivery of Equipment,
Instrument, Apparatus, and Other Paraphernalia
• Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs
• Section 12. Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other
Paraphernalia
• Section 13. Possession of Dangerous Drugs During Parties, Social
• Section 14. Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other
Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs During Parties, Social Gatherings
or Meetings
• Section 15. Use of Dangerous Drugs
• Section 16. Cultivation or Culture of Plants Classified as Dangerous
Drugs or are Sources Thereof
• Section 17. Maintenance and Keeping of Original Records of
Transactions
• Section 18. Unnecessary Prescription of Dangerous Drugs
• Section 19. Unlawful Prescription of Dangerous Drugs
Section 12. Possession of Equipment, Instrument,
Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs. -
UNLAWUL ACTS ELEMENTS PENALTY

SEC. 12 Possession of Equipment, a) the offender is in Imprisonment:
Instrument, Apparatus possession of six (6) months and
and Other Paraphernalia paraphernalia for one (1) day to four
for Dangerous Drugs dangerous drugs; (4) years;
b) such possession
is not authorized FINE: P10,000.00
by law; to P50,000.00
c) the accused
freely and
consciously
possessed the
paraphernalia for
dangerous drugs
EXCEPTION: in the case of medical practitioners and various professionals who are required
to carry such equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia in the practice of
their profession, the Board shall prescribe the necessary implementing guidelines thereof.
DRUG PARAPHERNALIA INCLUDES:
• equipment
• instrument
• apparatus and
• other paraphernalia
• fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering, injecting,
ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug into the body
Sec. 3 (s) Instrument. – Any thing that is used in or intended to be used
in any manner in the commission of illegal drug trafficking or related
offenses
The possession of such equipment, instrument,
apparatus and other paraphernalia fit or intended for
any of the purposes enumerated in the preceding
paragraph shall be prima facie evidence that the
possessor has smoked, consumed, administered to
himself/herself, injected, ingested or used a dangerous
drug and shall be presumed to have violated Section
15 of this Act.
POSSESSION
People v. Collado G.R. No. 185719 06/17/2013
It was clear that it was only Ranada who was caught

having in his possession an aluminum foil intended for
using dangerous drugs. As to the other co-accused, not
one drug paraphernalia was found in their possession.
The police officers were only able to find the other drug
paraphernalia scattered on top of a table.
It is already established that there was no conspiracy
between Ranada and the other co-accused. Mere
presence at the scene of the crime does not imply
conspiracy. The other co-accused were acquitted.
INTENT TO DELIVER
If possession of drug paraphernalia is accompanied by

intent to deliver, and the offender know or ought to know
under circumstances that it will be used to inject, ingest,
inhale or otherwise introduce into the human body a
dangerous drug in violation of RA 9165, the crime
committed is violation of Section 10.
Section 10. Manufacture or Delivery of Equipment,

Instrument, Apparatus, and Other Paraphernalia for
Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential
Chemicals.
TRACES OF DRUG
QUESTION: If there are traces of shabu found on a glass tube,

should the person from whom the tube was confiscated be
held liable for possession of drug paraphernalia under Sec. 12
or possession of dangerous drugs under Sec. 11?
ANSWER: Possession of drug paraphernalia under Sec. 12

Although a person can be held liable for possession of
dangerous drug regardless of the quantity thereof, the law
could not have intended to make mere traces of shabu on a
tube punishable under section 11.
POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS AND DRUG
PARAPHERNALIA
U.S. v. Poh Chi, G.R. No. 6637, September 1, 1911
It was held that opium and the pipe were found together under
the floor; they were found in the same place, at the same time, and
by the same person. As the defendant was convicted of illegal
possession of opium, he could not be charged with illegal
possession of a pipe, which is used in smoking opium.
It is true that the law has provided a certain punishment for the
possession of a pipe used in the smoking of opium, and for the
possession of opium, but it is not believed that it was the intention
of the legislature to have separate complaint filed against a person
who was found in the illegal possession of opium and a pipe at the
same time.
POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS AND DRUG
PARAPHERNALIA
People v. Casacop, G.R. No. 210454, January 13, 2016
SC did not apply Poh Chi principle that possession of dangerous drugs
absorbed possession of drug paraphernalia.
In Casacop case, after the accused was apprehended for selling drugs, plastic
sachets containing shabu, an improvised glass tooter containing shabu residue
and the rolled aluminum foil with shabu were found in his pocket. He was
convicted of three separate crimes of Sale under Sec.5, possession of dangerous
drugs under Sec. 11, and possession of drug paraphernalia under Sec. 12.
People v. Piad, G.R. No. 213607, January 25, 2016

SC sustained the conviction of the accused for possession of dangerous drugs
and possession of drug paraphernalia.
Does Poh Chi doctrine still applies?
YES.
The Supreme Court in Casacop case and Piad case is
not sitting en banc. Hence, it cannot abandon the Poh
Chi case.
Under Section 4, Article VIII of the Constitution, no
doctrine or principle laid down by the court in a decision
en banc or in division may be modified or reversed
except by the court sitting en banc.
Section 13. Possession of Dangerous Drugs During Parties,
Social Gatherings or Meetings.
UNLAWUL ELEMENTS PENALTY
ACTS
SEC. Possession of a) possession by the accused of an item maximum penalties
13 Dangerous or object defined to be a prohibited provided for in
Drugs During or dangerous drug; Section 11 of this
Parties, Social b) such possession is not authorized by Act, regardless of the
Gatherings or law; quantity and purity
Meetings. c) the free and conscious possession of of such dangerous
the drug by the accused; drugs.
d) the accused possessed the prohibited
or dangerous drug during a social
gathering or meeting, or in the
company of at least two persons
The phrase “company of at least two (2) persons” shall mean the accused or suspect plus at
least two others, who may or may not be in possession of any dangerous drugs. (PDEA IRR)
Section 14. Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other
Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs During Parties, Social Gatherings or
Meetings.
UNLAWUL ACTS ELEMENTS PENALTY
Possession of a) the offender is in possession Imprisonment:

Equipment, of paraphernalia for (4) years;
Instrument, dangerous drugs;
Apparatus and Other b) such possession is not FINE:
Paraphernalia for authorized by law; P50,000.00
Dangerous Drugs c) the accused freely and
During Parties, Social consciously possessed the **which is the
Gatherings or paraphernalia for dangerous maximum penalty
Meetings drugs provided in Section
d) the accused possessed the 12
paraphernalia for dangerous
drug during a social gathering
or meeting, or in the company
of atleast two persons
People v. Piad, G.R. No. 213607, January 25, 2016
The police officers found Villarosa, Carbo and Davis sitting in

the floor and surrounded by one heat-sealed sachet and two
unsealed sachets. A laboratory report showed that these sachets
contained a total of 0.03 gram of shabu. The said persons were
also found with an aluminum foil, a tooter, and disposable
lighters, which were considered drug paraphernalia.
They were convicted of possession of dangerous drugs under
Sec. 13 and possession of drug paraphernalia under Sec. 14
because there was a proximate company of at least two persons
without any legal authority to possess the illicit items.
Section 15. Use of Dangerous Drugs
UNLAWUL ELEMENTS PENALTY
ACT
a)
That the offender was 1st Offense: minimum of six (6)
Use of arrested or months rehabilitation in a
Dangerous apprehended; government center subject to
Drugs b) that the offender is the provisions of Article VIII of
found to be positive this Act
for use of any 2nd Offense:
dangerous drug, after
imprisonment from 6 years and
a confirmatory test; 1 day to 12 years;
c) that the offender fineP50,000.00 to P200,000.00
must not be in
possession of
dangerous drug;
EXCEPTION: 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.
FIRST ELEMENT: The offender was arrested or apprehended;
 Arrested for drug related crime

Under Sec. 38, any person apprehended or arrested for drug –
related crime (e.g. sale, importation or possession of dangerous
drugs) shall be subjected to screening test, if the arresting officer
has reasonable ground to believe that the arrestee is under the
influence of dangerous drugs.
If the arrestee is found to be positive, the result of the
screening test shall be challenged through a confirmatory test. If
confirmed, the same shall be prima facie evidence that the arrestee
has used dangerous drugs.
A positive screening test must be confirmed for it to valid in a
court of law.
Where residue of dangerous drugs is found and there is a positive
confirmatory test result, the accused should be charged with use rather
than possession of dangerous drugs. People v. Martinez G.R. No.
191366 December 13, 2010
This would be in keeping with the intent of the law to rehabilitate first
time offenders of drug use and provide them with an opportunity to
recover for a second chance at life.
If a person is caught in the act of using dangerous drugs, the
police can arrest him for possession of dangerous drugs. If he is
found positive for using dangerous drugs after confirmatory tests,
he shall be convicted of use of dangerous drugs under Section 15
and not possession under Section 11 even though residue of
dangerous drug is found. But if he is in possession of dangerous
drugs other than that being consumed by him, he shall be
convicted of possession of dangerous drugs.
 Any person apprehended for a crime not related to drugs
(such as robbery-extortion) shall not be subjected to dangerous
drug test. Hence, he cannot be convicted of use under Sec. 15
Dela Cruz v. People, G.R. No. 200748, July 23, 2014
The accused who was apprehended for extortion was

subjected to drug test and found positive for dangerous drugs. He
was acquitted for use of dangerous drugs.
It was held that the phrase “a person apprehended or

arrested” in Sec. 15 cannot literally mean any person
apprehended or arrested for any crime. The phrase must be read
in context and understood in consonance with R.A. 9165. Sec. 15
comprehends persons arrested or apprehended for unlawful acts
under R.A.9165. Hence, a drug test can be made upon persons
who are apprehended or arrested for drug related crime.
 DRUG TESTING
Although Sec. 15 speaks of “person apprehended or
arrested”, one may be held liable for use of dangerous drug
even though he us not an arrestee. This is an exception to the
rule.
Under Sec. 36, a person found to be positive for
dangerous drug, after being subjected to undergo mandatory
or random drug testing shall be subject to the provisions of
Section 15.
TRACES OF DRUG
QUESTION: What if there are traces of shabu found on a

glass tube, and the person from whom the tube was
confiscated was found positive for dangerous drugs after a
confirmatory test, should he be held liable for possession of
dangerous drugs under Sec. 11 or use of dangerous drugs
under Sec. 15?
ANSWER: He shall be liable for use of dangerous drugs under

Sec. 15
Possession of dangerous drugs under Sec. 11 is absorbed
by the crime of use of dangerous drugs under Sec. 15
 PRESUMPTION OF USE OF DANGEROUS DRUG
Under Sec. 12, the possessor of drug paraphernalia shall
be “presumed” to have used dangerous drug in violation of
Section 15.
Despite of the presumption, Sec. 15 requires that the
offender must be “found to be positive…after a confirmatory
test” to be held liable for use.
If the arrestee is found negative, he should not be held
liable under Sec. 15. The negative result of a drug testing
overcomes the presumption of use of dangerous drug.
However, the arrestee can still be prosecuted under Sec. 12.
 UNREHABILITATED DRUG DEPENDENT
A drug dependent or any person who commits the crime of
use of dangerous drug may by himself or through his relative
with the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity or guardian
apply for treatment and rehabilitation of the drug dependency
(Section 54).
Criminal exemption - A drug dependent, who is finally
discharged from confinement, shall be exempt from the
criminal liability for use of dangerous drug subject to the
conditions stated in Sec. 55.
Criminal Prosecution - A drug dependent who is not
rehabilitated after the second commitment to the Center under
the voluntary submission program, shall upon recommendation
of the Board be charged with “use of dangerous drug” and
prosecuted like any other offender. If convicted, he/she shall be
credited for the period of confinement and rehabilitation in the
Center in the service of his/her sentence (sec. 58)
SECOND ELEMENT: the offender is found to be positive for
use of any dangerous drug, after a confirmatory test;
The drug testing shall employ two testing methods;

1. SCREENING - which will determine the positive result as
well as the type of the drug used and ;
2. CONFIMATORY TEST – which will confirm a positive
screening test
Positive confirmatory test is an element of use of
dangerous drugs under Sec. 15 (Nacague v. Sulpicio Lines). However,
the absence of such test cannot be raised as an issue for the
first time on appeal. (Ambre v. Pp, GR 191532, Aug. 15, 2012)
People v. Andrade, G.R. No. 187000, November 24, 2014
The information charged the accused of the use of

dangerous drug without allegation that he was apprehended
and found positive for dangerous drug after a confirmatory
test.
The Trial Court granted the motion to dismiss on the
ground that to be held liable for use of dangerous drug, it is
essential that the accused was arrested or apprehended for
drug related crime, or subjected to drug testing under Sec. 36,
and that the accused was found positive for dangerous drugs.
The Supreme Court ruled that the Trial Court instead of
immediately dismissing the case should have given the
prosecution and opportunity to amend the defect in the
information.
THIRD ELEMENT: the offender must not be in possession of
dangerous drug
Under the new law, possessor and user of dangerous drug

can only be held liable for possession of dangerous drug
under Sec. 11.
In People v. Araza, G.R. No. 190623, November 17, 2014,

police officer validly confiscated the shabu after the accused
was arrested in flagrante delicto sniffing shabu in the
company of other people and in possession of 0.06 gram of
shabu. He was convicted of possession of dangerous drug.
THIRD ELEMENT: the offender must not be in possession of
dangerous drug
However, when the presence of dangerous drug is only

and solely in the form of residue and the confirmatory test is
positive, he should be charged with use of dangerous drugs to
afford him a chance to be rehabilitated.
The filing of charges for or involving possession of
dangerous drugs should only be done when another
separate quantity of dangerous drugs, other than mere
residue is found in the possession of the accused as provided
for in Section 15. (People v. Martinez, G.R. No. 191366,
December 13, 2010)
UNLAWUL ACTS Committed by: PENALTY
a) any person, who IMPRISONMENT:
shall plant, life imprisonment
Cultivation or Culture of cultivate or culture
to death;
SEC. 16 Plants Classified as marijuana, opium
poppy or any other
Dangerous Drugs or are plant regardless of FINE: ranging
Sources Thereof quantity, which is from P500,000.00
or may hereafter to P10,000,000.00
be classified as a
dangerous drug or
as a source from
which any
dangerous drug
may be
manufactured or
derived
EXCEPTION: In the case of medical laboratories and medical research centers

which cultivate or culture marijuana, opium poppy and other plants, or materials
of such dangerous drugs for medical experiments and research purposes, or for
the creation of new types of medicine, the Board shall prescribe the necessary
implementing guidelines for the proper cultivation, culture, handling,
experimentation and disposal of such plants and materials
OTHER PENALTIES:
1. The land or portions thereof and/or greenhouses on which
any of said plants is cultivated or cultured shall be confiscated
and escheated in favor of the State;
EXCEPTION: when the owner thereof can prove lack of

knowledge of such cultivation or culture despite the exercise of
due diligence on his/her part.
2. If the land involved is part of the public domain, the

maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall be
imposed upon the offender.
UNLAWUL ACTS COMMITTED BY: PENALTY
SEC. 16 Cultivation or Culture b.) any person, who maximum penalty
of Plants Classified as organizes, manages or
Dangerous Drugs or acts as a financier" of
are Sources Thereof any of the illegal
activities prescribed in
this Section
c.) any person, who acts

as a "protector/coddler" IMPRISONMENT:
of any violator of the 12 years & 1 day to
provisions under this 20
Section
FINE:
P100,000.00 to
P500,000.00
KNOWLEDGE
Illegal cultivation or culture of dangerous drugs is an
offense malum prohibitum. Hence, LACK OF
KNOWLEDGE that the plant being raised, cultivated or
cultured is dangerous drug is NOT A VALID DEFENSE.
In Zanoria v. CA, G.R. No. 110163, December 15, 1997,
the agents launched their operations after receiving a report
that marijuana plants were being cultured in the hinterlands
of Sitio Kabulihan and that a certain Eddie supervised the
same.
Petitioner argues that his mere presence at the site during
the operations cannot justify his conviction for “for knowingly,
planting, growing or raising of any plant which is the source of
a prohibited drug”.
He contends that conviction of cultivation of marijuana
requires a series of human activities, that is, the deliberate
planting, growing or raising. Such assertion is misplaced.
Evident on record is that petitioner failed to adequately
explained his presence at the site teeming with full grown
marijuana plants. His claim that he has never seen nor heard
of marijuana is incredulous.
KNOWLEDGE
However, LACK OF KNOWLEDGE that the plant
being raised, cultured or cultivated is a source of
dangerous drugs is a VALID DEFENDE IN ILLEGAL
PLANTING.
Sec. 3. defines cultivate or culture as any act of
“knowingly” planting, growing, raising or permitting
the planting, growing or raising of any plant which is
the source of a dangerous drug.
The word “knowingly” was used in the definition.
Thus, knowledge on the part of the offender that
the plant being raised or cultivated as a source of
dangerous drugs is an element of this kind of
offense.
ILLEGAL SEARCH
In People v. Pasudag, G.R. No. 128822, May 4, 2001, the
prosecution’s evidence clearly established that the police
conducted a search of accused’s backyard garden, where the
marijuana were planted, without a warrant; they had sufficient
time to obtain a search warrant; they failed to secure one. There
was no showing of urgency or necessity for the warrantless
search, or the immediate seizure of the plants. Time is not of
essence to uproot and confiscate the plants because they were
three months old and there was no sufficient reason to believe
that they would be uprooted on the same day.
Alberto Pasudag is ACQUITTED.

 MEDICAL RESEARCH AND EXPERIMENT PURPOSE
If a person cultivate or culture plant classified as
dangerous drug or as a source of a dangerous drug for
medical research purpose without complying with the
guidelines issued by the Dangerous Drug Board, he can
be liable for violation of Sec. 16.
Since this crime is malum prohibitum, GOOD FAITH

IS NOT A DEFENSE.
UNLAWUL ACTS IMPOSED UPON: PENALTY
a) any practitioner, IMPRISONMENT:
manufacturer, 1 year & 1 day to
wholesaler,
Maintenance and Keeping importer, distributor, 6 years
SEC. 17 of Original Records of dealer or retailer FINE:
Transactions on who violates or fails P10,000.00 to
Dangerous Drugs and/or to comply with the
maintenance and P50,000.00
Controlled Precursors and keeping of the
Essential Chemicals original records of An additional penalty
transactions on any shall be imposed
dangerous drug through the revocation
and/or controlled of the license to practice
precursor and his/her profession, in
essential chemical in case of a practitioner, or
of the business, in case
accordance with of a manufacturer, seller,
Section 40 of this importer, distributor,
Act dealer or retailer
UNLAWUL SPECIFIC ACT PENALTY
ACT
• prescription of a practitioner of IMPRISONMENT:
Unnecessary any dangerous drug to any 12 years and 1 day
Prescription of person whose physical or to 20 years
SEC. Dangerous physiological condition does not
require the use or in the dosage FINE:
18 Drugs prescribed therein, as determined P100,000.00 to
by the Board in consultation P500,000.00
with recognized competent
experts who are authorized
representatives of professional
additional
organizations of practitioners,
penalty
particularly those who are revocation of
involved in the care of persons his/her license to
with severe pain practice shall be
imposed upon the
practitioner
UNLAWUL ACTS SPECIFIC ACT PENALTY
• making or IMPRISONMENT:
issuance of a life imprisonment
prescription or to death
SEC. 19 Unlawful Prescription of any other writing
Dangerous Drugs purporting to be a FINE:
prescription for P500,000.00 to
any dangerous P10,000,000.00
drug, unless
authorized by law
 Practitioners are authorized to make prescription of drug,
which is classified as dangerous, to their patients or for
medical purposes. However, unnecessary prescription is a
violation of Sec. 18.
 Prescription of dangerous drug to a person, whose physical
or physiological condition does not require the use thereof,
or in excess of the dosage as determined by the Board are
unnecessary.
 Only practitioners can commit the crime under Section 18.
Practitioner is any person who is licensed physician,
dentist, chemist, medical technologist, nurse, midwife,
veterinarian or pharmacist in the Philippines.
 Non- practitioner who made prescription of dangerous
drug to a person, is liable under Section 19 regardless of
whether prescription is necessary or unnecessary.
Section 20
CONFISCATION AND FORFEITURE OF THE PROCEEDS

OR INSTRUMENTS OF THE UNLAWFUL ACT,
INCLUDING THE PROPERTIES OR PROCEEDS
DERIVED FROM THE ILLEGAL TRAFFICKING OF
DANGEROUS DRUGS AND/OR PRECURSORS AND
ESSENTIAL CHEMICALS.
SECTION
THE SALIENT FEATURES 20 20 OF RA 9165?
OF SECTION
 CONFISCATION AND FORFEITURE OF PROHIBITED DRUGS,

ESSENTIAL CHEMICALS, CULTIVATION OR CULTURE OF
PLANTS WHICH IS SOURCE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS AND
POSSESSION OF ANY EQUIPMENT, INSTRUMENT,
APPARATUS AND OTHER PARAPHERNALIA AND
LABORATORY EQUIPMENT.
 CONFISCATION, CUSTODY AND SALE OF ARTICLES,

PROCEEDS, INTRUMENTS AND PROPERTIES DERIVED
FROM UNLAWFUL ACT (EXCLUDING THE DANGEROUS
DRUGS CUSTODY AND DISPOSITION WHICH IS DISCUSSED IN
SEC 21)
IN SUMMARY:
1. SEIZURE AND CONFISCATION
2. CUSTODY OF PROCEEDS AND OTHER ASSETS/PROPERTIES
3. FORFEITURE, DESTRUCTION OF UNLAWFUL OBJECTS
SECTION 20
WHAT IS THE BASIS SEIZURE
OF CONFISCATION?
AND CONFISCATION
LAST SENTENCE OF PAR 1 IN SEC 20 OF RA 9165 WHICH IS EXTENDED IN
ANALOGY WITH ARTICLE 45 (PAR 1) OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE OF THE
PHILIPPINES
ART 45 RPC: CONFISCATION AND FORFEITURE OF THE PROCEEDS OR

INSTRUMENTS OF THE CRIME. - EVERY PENALTY IMPOSED FOR THE
COMMISSION OF A FELONY SHALL CARRY WITH IT THE FORFEITURE OF
THE PROCEEDS OF THE CRIME AND THE INSTRUMENTS OR TOOLS WITH
WHICH IT WAS COMMITTED.
WHAT ARE INCLUDED IN THE SEIZURE?
 DANGEROUS DRUGS AND/OR CONTROLLED PRECURSOR AND

ESSENTIAL CHEMICAL, AND PLANTS WHICH ARE SOURCES OF
DANGEROUS DRUGS
 ANY EQUIPMENT, INSTRUMENTS, APPARATUS AND OTHER
PARAPHERNALIA FOR DANGEROUS DRUG INCLUDING LABORATORY
EQUIPMENT
 ANY PROCEEDS OR MONIES TAKEN DURING THE SEIZURE
 OTHER ASSETS OR PROPERTIES AND ITS FRUITS DERIVED FROM THE
UNLAWFUL ACTS
SECTION 20
WHAT ARE EXCLUDED SEIZURE AND CONFISCATION
IN THE SEIZURE?
PROPERTIES OF A THIRD PERSON NOT LIABLE FOR THE UNLAWFUL ACT
EXCEPT ARTICLES NOT SUBJECT OF LAWFUL COMMERCE (ILLEGAL/
UNLAWFUL EQUIPMENT/ ITEMS)
(BASIS: SEC 20 (PAR 1) OF RA 9165 AND ARTICLE 45 (PAR 2)OF RPC
ARTICLE 45 (PAR 2) RPC: SUCH PROCEEDS AND INSTRUMENTS OR TOOLS

SHALL BE CONFISCATED AND FORFEITED IN FAVOR OF THE GOVERNMENT,
UNLESS THEY BE THE PROPERTY OF A THIRD PERSON NOT LIABLE FOR THE
OFFENSE, BUT THOSE ARTICLES WHICH ARE NOT SUBJECT OF LAWFUL
COMMERCE SHALL BE DESTROYED.)
REQUISITE OF A THIRD PERSON SUBJECT OF RETURN OF PROPERTY?

THIRD PERSON MUST NOT BE A PRINCIPAL, ACCESSORY OR ACCOMPLICE
IN THE OFFENSE COMMITED (PDEA VS BRODETT GR NO. 196390)
WHEN IS RETURN MADE?

WHEN THE JUDGMENT WAS RENDERED IN THE PROCEEDINGS/ TRIAL
(BASIS: TO PRESERVE IT AS EVIDENCE AND TO ENSURE ITS AVAILABILITY AS SUCH.
TO RELEASE IT BEFORE THE JUDGMENT IS RENDERED IS TO DEPRIVE THE TRIAL
COURT AND THE PARTIES ACCESS TO IT AS EVIDENCE. PDEA VS BRODETT GR NO.
196390)
SECTION 20
CUSTODY OF PROCEEDS AND OTHER ASSETS/PROPERTIES
WHERE IS THE CUSTODY OF THE PROCEEDS AND OTHER
ASSETS/ PROPERTIES?
THE PROCEEDS AND OTHER ASSETS/ PROPERTIES MUST BE IN

CUSTODIA LEGIS AND NO BOND SHALL BE ADMITTED FOR THE
RELEASE OF THE SAME. (SEC 20 (PAR 3) RA 9165)
PLACE: TRIAL COURTS PARTICULARLY RTC UNLESS

VOLUMINOUS IN CUSTODY OF POLICE STN
*A THING IS IN CUSTODIA LEGIS WHEN IT IS SHOWN THAT IT

HAS BEEN AND IS SUBJECTED TO THE OFFICIAL CUSTODY OF A
JUDICIAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER IN PURSUANCE OF HIS
EXECUTION OF A LEGAL WRIT (BAGALIHOG VS. FERNANDEZ, 198
SCRA 614 [1991])
SECTION 20
CUSTODY OF PROCEEDS AND OTHER ASSETS/ PROPERTIES
PERIOD OF CUSTODIA LEGIS?
CUSTODIA LEGIS EXTENDS ONLY TO REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS (RTC)
IF CONVICTED - THE COURT SHALL IMMEDIATELY SCHEDULE A HEARING

FOR THE CONFISCATION AND FORFEITURE OF ALL THE PROCEEDS OF THE
OFFENSE AND ALL THE ASSETS AND PROPERTIES OF THE ACCUSED EITHER
OWNED OR HELD BY HIM OR IN THE NAME OF SOME OTHER PERSONS IF
THE SAME SHALL BE FOUND TO BE MANIFESTLY OUT OF PROPORTION TO
HIS/HER LAWFUL INCOME: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT IF THE FORFEITED
PROPERTY IS A VEHICLE, THE SAME SHALL BE AUCTIONED OFF NOT LATER
THAN FIVE (5) DAYS UPON ORDER OF CONFISCATION OR FORFEITURE.
(SEC 20 (PAR 2) RA 9165)
IF ACQUITTED – THE COURT WILL RETURN THE PROCEEDS, INSTRUMENTS

AND PROPERTIES PROVIDED THEY ARE LAWFUL OBJECT OF COMMERCE
OF MAN
SECTION 20
FORFEITURE, DESTRUCTION OF UNLAWFUL OBJECTS AND/OR SALE OF
LAWFUL PROPERTIES
ARE ALL PROCEEDS AND OTHER ASSETS/ PROPERTIES SEIZED BE
FORFEITED AFTER CONVICTION?
NO, EVEN AFTER CONVICTION, THE COURT SHALL IMMEDIATELY

SCHEDULE A HEARING FOR THE CONFISCATION AND FORFEITURE OF ALL
THE PROCEEDS OF THE OFFENSE AND ALL THE ASSETS AND PROPERTIES
OF THE ACCUSED EITHER OWNED OR HELD BY HIM OR IN THE NAME OF
SOME OTHER PERSONS IF THE SAME SHALL BE FOUND TO BE
MANIFESTLY OUT OF PROPORTION TO HIS/HER LAWFUL INCOME:
PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT IF THE FORFEITED PROPERTY IS A VEHICLE,
THE SAME SHALL BE AUCTIONED OFF NOT LATER THAN FIVE (5) DAYS
UPON ORDER OF CONFISCATION OR FORFEITURE. (SEC 20 (PAR 2) RA 9165
)
BASIS: DUE PROCESS OF LAW

SECTION 20
FORFEITURE, DESTRUCTION OF UNLAWFUL OBJECTS AND/OR
SALE OF LAWFUL PROPERTIES
WHERE ARE THE PROCEEDS OF SALE OR DISPOSITION GO TO?
1. THE PROCEEDS OF ANY SALE OR DISPOSITION OF ANY

PROPERTY CONFISCATED OR FORFEITED UNDER THIS
SECTION SHALL BE USED TO PAY ALL PROPER EXPENSES
INCURRED IN THE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE
CONFISCATION, FORFEITURE, CUSTODY AND
MAINTENANCE OF THE PROPERTY PENDING
DISPOSITION, AS WELL AS EXPENSES FOR PUBLICATION
AND COURT COSTS.
2. ANY EXCESS SHALL ACCRUE TO THE DANGEROUS DRUG
BOARD TO BE USED IN ITS CAMPAIGN AGAINST ILLEGAL
DRUGS.
(SEC 20 PARAGRAPH 4 RA 9165)

Case 1:
PHILIPPINE DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY (PDEA), PETITIONER, VS.
RICHARD BRODETT AND JORGE JOSEPH, RESPONDENTS
G.R. NO. 196390
SEPTEMBER 28, 2011
PONENTE: EX-CJ BERSAMIN
ISSUE:
MAY A THIRD PERSON OWNING A LAWFUL OBJECT OF COMMERCE SEIZED

IN A DRUG OPERATION FILE A “MOTION TO RETURN NON-DRUG
EVIDENCE” AND BE REPLACED BY A PHOTOGRAPH OF ACTUAL THING
DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE TRIAL?
Case 1:
PHILIPPINE DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY (PDEA), PETITIONER, VS.
RICHARD BRODETT AND JORGE JOSEPH, RESPONDENTS
G.R. NO. 196390
SEPTEMBER 28, 2011
PONENTE: EX-CJ BERSAMIN
RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT:

THE STATUS OF THE CAR (OR ANY OTHER ARTICLE CONFISCATED IN RELATION TO
THE UNLAWFUL ACT) FOR THE DURATION OF THE TRIAL IN THE RTC AS BEING IN
CUSTODIA LEGIS IS PRIMARILY INTENDED TO PRESERVE IT AS EVIDENCE AND TO
ENSURE ITS AVAILABILITY AS SUCH. TO RELEASE IT BEFORE THE JUDGMENT IS
RENDERED IS TO DEPRIVE THE TRIAL COURT AND THE PARTIES ACCESS TO IT AS
EVIDENCE. CONSEQUENTLY, THAT PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ORDERED TO BE TAKEN OF
THE CAR WAS NOT ENOUGH, FOR MERE PHOTOGRAPHS MIGHT NOT FILL IN FULLY
THE EVIDENTIARY NEED OF THE PROSECUTION.
Section 21
CUSTODY AND DISPOSITION OF CONFISCATED, SEIZED,

AND/OR SURRENDERED DANGEROUS DRUGS, PLANT
SOURCES OF DANGEROUS DRUGS, CONTROLLED
PRECURSORS AND ESSENTIAL CHEMICALS,
INSTRUMENTS/PARAPHERNALIA AND/OR LABORATORY
EQUIPMENT
(AMENDED BY RA NO. 10640, JULY 14, 2014 FOR

PARAGRAPH 1 AND PROCEDURE 1 AND 3)
SECTION 21
JUST HOW IMPORTANT IS SECTION 21 OF RA 9165?
DRUG CASES AS OF AUGUST 2019 POSTED IN SUPREME COURT LIBRARY:

Year Cases Acquittal Conviction
2019 85 70 15
82% 18%
JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL:
Year Acquittal Chain of Custody Others
(Sec 21)
2019 70 65 5
93% 7%
OTHERS INCLUDE: ILLEGAL ARREST, ILLEGAL SEIZURES
SECTION 21
IN CASES FOR ILLEGAL SALE AND/OR ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS
DRUGS UNDER RA 9165, IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT THE IDENTITY OF THE
DANGEROUS DRUG BE ESTABLISHED WITH MORAL CERTAINTY,
CONSIDERING THAT THE DANGEROUS DRUG ITSELF FORMS AN INTEGRAL
PART OF THE CORPUS DELICTI OF THE CRIME. FAILING TO PROVE THE
INTEGRITY OF THE CORPUS DELICTI RENDERS THE EVIDENCE FOR THE STATE
INSUFFICIENT TO PROVE THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT, AND HENCE, WARRANTS AN ACQUITTAL
(PP VS. UMIPANG GR NO. 190321 APR 25, 2012; PP VS MIRANDA GR NO. 229671 JAN
31, 2018)
AS A GENERAL RULE, COMPLIANCE WITH THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY

PROCEDURE IS STRICTLY ENJOINED AS THE SAME HAS BEEN REGARDED
"'NOT MERELY AS A PROCEDURAL TECHNICALITY BUT AS A MATTER OF
SUBSTANTIVE LAW.' THIS IS BECAUSE '[T]HE LAW HAS BEEN CRAFTED BY
CONGRESS AS SAFETY PRECAUTIONS TO ADDRESS POTENTIAL POLICE
ABUSES, ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING THAT THE PENALTY IMPOSED MAY BE
LIFE IMPRISONMENT.
(PP VS. BANGALAN, GR NO. 232249, SEPT 3, 2018 CITING PP VS. UMIPANG GR NO.
190321 APR 25, 2012)
SECTION 21
CHAIN OF CUSTODY
WHAT IS CHAIN OF CUSTODY?
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.
(SEC 1 (B) OF DANGEROUS DRUGS BOARD REGULATION NO. 1 SERIES OF 2002)
THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY RULE IS BUT A VARIATION OF THE PRINCIPLE THAT REAL
EVIDENCE MUST BE AUTHENTICATED PRIOR TO ITS ADMISSION INTO EVIDENCE.
( United States v. Rawlins, 606 F.3d 73 (2010))
THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY, AS A METHOD OF AUTHENTICATION, ENSURES THAT

UNNECESSARY DOUBTS INVOLVING THE IDENTITY OF SEIZED DRUGS ARE REMOVED
(PP VS LAXA (2001); PP VS SIMBAHON (2003); MALLILLIN VS PP (2008))
CHAIN OF CUSTODY IS A PROCEDURAL MECHANISM THAT ENSURES THAT THE

IDENTITY AND INTEGRITY OF THE CORPUS DELICTI ARE CLEAR AND FREE FROM
ANY UNNECESSARY DOUBT OR UNCERTAINTY. IT SECURES THE CLOSE AND CAREFUL
MONITORING AND RECORDING OF THE CUSTODY, SAFEKEEPING, AND TRANSFER
OF THE CONFISCATED ILLEGAL DRUG SO AS TO PRECLUDE ANY INCIDENT OF
PLANTING, TAMPERING, OR SWITCHING OF EVIDENCE
(MALLILLIN VS PP GR NO. 172953 APR 30, 2008)
SECTION 21
CHAIN
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF OFCUSTODY?
CHAIN OF CUSTODY
TO PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY AND EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF SEIZED OR
CONFISCATED ILLEGAL DRUGS OR THE CORPUS DELICTI (PEOPLE VS. GOCO
GR NO. 219584, OCT 17, 2016)
WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY OF THE CORPUS

DELICTI OF THE CRIME?
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. (PEOPLE VS MAGAT GR NO. 179939,
SEP 28, 2008)
THE PROSECUTION MUST SHOW BY RECORDS OR TESTIMONY, THE

CONTINUOUS WHEREABOUTS OF THE EXHIBIT AT LEAST BETWEEN THE
TIME IT CAME INTO POSSESSION OF THE POLICE OFFICERS AND UNTIL IT
WAS TESTED IN THE LABORATORY TO DETERMINE ITS COMPOSITION UP
TO THE TIME IT WAS OFFERED IN EVIDENCE. (PEOPLE VS CABLANG GR NO.
182347, OCT 17, 2008)
SECTION 21
1ST PARAGRAPH OF SECTION 21 RA 9165 AMENDED BY RA 10640
THE PHILIPPINE DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY (PDEA) SHALL

TAKE CHARGE AND HAVE CUSTODY OF ALL DANGEROUS DRUGS,
PLANT SOURCES OF DANGEROUS DRUGS, CONTROLLED
PRECURSORS AND ESSENTIAL CHEMICALS, AS WELL AS
INSTRUMENTS/PARAPHERNALIA AND/OR LABORATORY
EQUIPMENT SO CONFISCATED, SEIZED AND/OR SURRENDERED,
FOR PROPER DISPOSITION
(SEC 21 PAR 1 AS AMENDED BY RA 10640)
*EXCEPT INITIAL CUSTODY WHICH IS BY THE APPREHENDING

TEAM OR SEIZING OFFICER (IRR OF SEC 21 OF RA 9165 SEC 1 A.1)
SECTION 21
CHAIN OF CUSTODY
SEC 21 OF RA 9165 LISTED THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY UNTIL PROPER DISPOSITION OF ILLEGAL DRUGS
(SEC 21 OF RA 9165 AMENDED BY RA 10640, JUL 15, 2014)
Apprehending team Court shall hear the motion and w/in

By virtue of Warrant confiscate/ seize 72hrs conduct an ocular inspection
the illegal drugs or by Buy-Bust Team of the confiscated drugs
Prosecutor to file criminal

Apprehending team
information to the court with PDEA NEXT SLIDE
to do Markings, take Physical
to file urgent motion for immediate
Photograph and Inventory (VIP)
destruction
PDEA Forensic Laboratory to issue a

Submit w/in 24hrs the confiscated
certification immediately upon
items to PDEA Forensic Laboratory
receipt unless voluminous (partial)
SECTION 21
CHAIN OF CUSTODY
SEC 21 OF RA 9165 LISTED THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY UNTIL PROPER DISPOSITION OF ILLEGAL DRUGS
(SEC 21 OF RA 9165 AMENDED BY RA 10640, JUL 15, 2014)
W/in 24hrs after Court’s inspection,
PDEA thereafter to proceed to
destruction or burning of same but END
leaving representative sample at
min.
Destruction or burning shall be After Court’s judgment, prosecutor

attended by alleged offender or by shall inform DDB and turnover
PAO upon failure of accused to representative sample to PDEA for
attend destruction w/in 24hrs upon receipt
DDB to issue sworn certification to

fact of destruction or burning and Court to proceed with trial
submit to the Court
SECTION 21
CHAIN OF CUSTODY
THE SUPREME COURT SIMPLIFIED THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY INTO LINKS
TO BE FOLLOWED BY THE APPREHENDING TEAM IN ESTABLISHING
INTEGRITY AND EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF SEIZED ILLEGAL DRUGS
(1) THE SEIZURE AND MARKING, IF PRACTICABLE, OF THE ILLEGAL DRUG

RECOVERED FROM THE ACCUSED BY THE APPREHENDING OFFICER;
(2) THE TURNOVER OF THE SEIZED ILLEGAL DRUG BY THE APPREHENDING
OFFICER TO THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER;
(3) THE TURNOVER OF THE ILLEGAL DRUG BY THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER
TO THE FORENSIC CHEMIST FOR LABORATORY EXAMINATION; AND
(4) THE TURNOVER AND SUBMISSION OF THE ILLEGAL DRUG FROM THE
FORENSIC CHEMIST TO THE COURT.
(PP VS. LIM GR NO. 231989, SEPT 4, 2018 AND PP VS KAMAD GR NO. 174198, JAN
19, 2010, PP VS. NANDI GR NO. 188905 JUN 13, 2010)
SECTION 21
GENERAL RULE: CHAIN OF CUSTODY
TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY OF THE DANGEROUS DRUG WITH MORAL
CERTAINTY, THE PROSECUTION MUST BE ABLE TO ACCOUNT FOR EACH
LINK OF THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY FROM THE MOMENT THE DRUGS ARE
SEIZED UP TO THEIR PRESENTATION IN COURT AS EVIDENCE OF THE
CRIME.
(PP VS AÑO GR NO. 230070 MAR 14, 2018; PP VS MIRANDA GR NO. 229671 JAN
31, 2018)
EXCEPTION (SAVING CLAUSE MENTIONED IN SC RULINGS APPLICABLE

EVEN CASES BEFORE RA 10640)
THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY RULE, HOWEVER, ADMITS OF AN EXCEPTION
WHICH IS FOUND IN THE SAVING CLAUSE INTRODUCED IN SECTION 21 (A),
ARTICLE II OF THE IRR OF R.A. NO. 9165. LESS THAN STRICT COMPLIANCE
WITH THE GUIDELINES STATED IN SECTION 21 DOES NOT NECESSARILY
RENDER VOID AND INVALID THE CONFISCATION AND CUSTODY OVER THE
EVIDENCE OBTAINED. THE SAVING CLAUSE IS SET IN MOTION WHEN
THESE REQUISITES ARE SATISFIED:
1) THE EXISTENCE OF JUSTIFIABLE GROUNDS; AND
2) THE INTEGRITY AND EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF THE SEIZED ITEMS ARE
PROPERLY PRESERVED BY THE POLICE OFFICERS.
(PP VS MIRANDA (2018) PP VS PATALLO GR NO. 218805 NOV 7, 2018; PP VS
SECTION 21
CHAIN OF CUSTODY
EXCEPTION (SAVING CLAUSE AS MENTIONED IN SC RULINGS ONLY APPLICABLE
AFTER RA 10640)
FIRST TIME ON APPEAL DOCTRINE AS A SAVING CLAUSE AS HELD IN PP VS STA

MARIA (FEB 2007) UNTIL PP VS BADILLA (AUG 31, 2016) WHICH STATES:
“THE ISSUE OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE INVENTORY AND PHOTOGRAPHY
REQUIREMENTS CANNOT BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL”
THIS IS AN ABANDONED DOCTRINE!
BASIS OF ABANDONMENT:
PEOPLE V. MIRANDA (GR 229671 JAN31, 2018)
ISSUED A DEFINITIVE REMINDER TO PROSECUTORS WHEN DEALING WITH DRUGS
CASES. IT IMPLORED THAT "[SINCE] THE [PROCEDURAL] REQUIREMENTS ARE
CLEARLY SET FORTH IN THE LAW, THE STATE RETAINS THE POSITIVE DUTY TO
ACCOUNT FOR ANY LAPSES IN THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY OF THE DRUGS/ITEMS
SEIZED FROM THE ACCUSED, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THE DEFENSE
RAISES THE SAME IN THE PROCEEDINGS A QUO; OTHERWISE, IT RISKS THE
POSSIBILITY OF HAVING A CONVICTION OVERTURNED ON GROUNDS THAT GO
INTO THE EVIDENCE'S INTEGRITY AND EVIDENTIARY VALUE, ALBEIT THE SAME ARE
RAISED ONLY FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL, OR EVEN NOT RAISED, BECOME
APPARENT UPON FURTHER REVIEW.“
SECTION 21
CHAIN OF CUSTODY
PP VS JAGDON GR NO. 234648 MAR 27, 2019
“APPEAL OPENS THE ENTIRE CASE FOR REVIEW”
WHEN AN ACCUSED APPEALS HIS CONVICTION, HE WAIVES HIS CONSTITUTIONAL
GUARANTEE AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY AS THE ENTIRE CASE IS OPEN FOR REVIEW. THE
COURT THEN RENDERS JUDGMENT AS LAW AND JUSTICE DICTATE IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS
CONCOMITANT AUTHORITY TO REVIEW AND SIFT THROUGH THE WHOLE CASE AND CORRECT
ANY ERROR, EVEN IF UNASSIGNED. THUS, IN PEOPLE V. MIRANDA,[24] THE COURT
ELUCIDATED THAT AN ACCUSED MAY CHALLENGE THE NON-COMPLIANCE OF THE
PROCEDURES UNDER SECTION 21 OF R.A. NO. 9165 EVEN FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL,
TO WIT:
AT THIS JUNCTURE, IT IS IMPORTANT TO CLARIFY THAT THE FACT THAT MIRANDA RAISED HIS
OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE INTEGRITY AND EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF THE DRUGS
PURPORTEDLY SEIZED FROM HIM ONLY FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE CA DOES NOT
PRECLUDE IT OR EVEN THIS COURT FROM PASSING UPON THE SAME.
NOTABLY, MENDOZA, STA, MARIA, AND UY, ARE ALL CRIMINAL CASES FOR VIOLATION OF RA
9165, PARTICULARLY INVOLVING OBJECTIONS TO THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY OF SEIZED DRUGS,
WHICH WERE THEN ULTIMATELY REJECTED BY THE COURT SINCE THE SAME WERE RAISED
ONLY FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL.
AFTER A THOROUGH STUDY OF THESE CASES, HOWEVER, THIS COURT HOLDS THAT THE
AFORESAID DECLARATIONS ESPOUSE MISPLACED RULINGS, AS THE SAME CLEARLY RUN
COUNTER TO THE FUNDAMENTAL RULE THAT "AN APPEAL IN CRIMINAL CASES THROWS THE
WHOLE CASE OPEN FOR REVIEW.“
THIS IS CONFIRMED IN THE FF CASES INN 2019: VALDEZ VS. PP (AUG 2019); LARGO VS PP (JUN
2019); PP VS TERNIDA (JUN 2019)
SECTION 21
CHAIN OF CUSTODY
APPLICABILITY OF THE LINKS:
THE LINK IS APPLICABLE TO ALL ILLEGAL DRUG CASES
1. SEARCH WITH WARRANT

2. WARRANTLESS SEARCH
EXAMPLES IN 2019 CASES:
• BUY-BUST OPERATION (FLAGRANTE DELICTO)
• STOP AND FRISK/ TERRY SEARCH (PP VS CRISTOBAL (JUN 2019))
• PAT/FRISK SEARCH (DONE IN BJMP COMPOUND) (CHICO VS PP (APR 2019))
• INCIDENT TO LAWFUL ARREST (PP VS JUGUILON (JUN 2019)
• INSPECTIONS OR BODY CHECKS IN AIRPORTS (PP VS NOAH (MAR 2019))
STRICT ADHERENCE TO THE MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 21(1) OF

R.A. NO. 9165, AS AMENDED, AND ITS IRR APPLIES NOT JUST ON ARREST AND/OR
SEIZURE BY REASON OF A LEGITIMATE BUY-BUST OPERATION BUT ALSO ON THOSE
LAWFULLY MADE IN AIR OR SEA PORT, DETENTION CELL OR NATIONAL
PENITENTIARY, CHECKPOINT, MOVING VEHICLE, LOCAL OR INTERNATIONAL
PACKAGE/PARCEL/MAIL, OR THOSE BY VIRTUE OF A CONSENTED SEARCH, STOP
AND FRISK (TERRY SEARCH), SEARCH INCIDENT TO A LAWFUL ARREST, OR
APPLICATION OF PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE WHERE TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE AND THE
ARREST AND/OR SEIZURE IS/ARE NOT PLANNED, ARRANGED OR SCHEDULED IN
ADVANCE
(PP VS. LIM GR NO. 231989, SEPT 4, 2018)
SECTION 21
CHAIN OF CUSTODY – LINK 1
LINK 1: THE SEIZURE AND MARKING, IF
PRACTICABLE, OF THE ILLEGAL DRUG RECOVERED
FROM THE ACCUSED BY THE APPREHENDING
OFFICER
HOW MADE?
1. THE ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES
2. THE REQUIRED MARKINGS
3. THE INVENTORY
4. PHOTOGRAPH OF THE CONFISCATED DANGEROUS
DRUGS
(LARGO VS PP GR NO. 201293, JUN 19, 2019)

SECTION 21
WHO ARE THE REQUIRED ATTENDANCE AND WITNESSES:
AFTER THE EFFECTIVITY OF RA 9165 AND UNTIL AFTER THE EFFECTIVITY OF RA 10640 EFFECTIVE
THE AMENDEDMENT OF RA 10640 EFFECTIVE JULY 15, 2014
JULY 15, 2014
1. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE 1. ANY ELECTED PUBLIC OFFICIAL

MEDIA 2. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE
2. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (DOJ) MEDIA OR NATIONAL
3. ANY ELECTED PUBLIC OFFICIAL PROSECUTION SERVICE
AND AND
THE ACCUSED OR HIS THE ACCUSED OR HIS
REPRESENTATIVE OR HIS COUNSEL REPRESENTATIVE OR HIS COUNSEL
SECTION 21
AFTER THE EFFECTIVITY OF RA 9165 AND UNTIL AFTER THE EFFECTIVITY OF RA 10640 EFFECTIVE
THE AMENDEDMENT OF RA 10640 EFFECTIVE JULY JULY 15, 2014
15, 2014
SECTION 21
IMPORTANCE OF DATE:
THE DATE OF COMMISSION OF THE CRIME IS IMPORTANT IN
DETERMINING THE NUMBER OF WITNESSES REQUIRED IN THE ARREST
AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS
WHO ARE THE ELECTED OFFICIAL, MEDIA AND NATIONAL PROSECUTION

SERVICE REPRESENTATIVES (NPS)?
A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE NATIONAL PROSECUTION SERVICE IS ANYONE

FROM ITS EMPLOYEES, WHILE THE MEDIA REPRESENTATIVE IS ANY MEDIA
PRACTITIONER. THE ELECTED PUBLIC OFFICIAL IS ANY INCUMBENT PUBLIC
OFFICIAL REGARDLESS OF THE PLACE WHERE HE/SHE IS ELECTED
SEC 1 A.1.6 OF GUIDELINES ON THE IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS

(IRR) OF SECTION 21 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165 AS AMENDED BY REPUBLIC ACT
NO. 10640 OF THE PDEA
SECTION 21
CHAIN OF CUSTODY
ELECTED – LINK 1
PUBLIC OFFICIAL
THE PRESENCE OF THE BARANGAY SECRETARY AND THE PUROK PRESIDENT DO

NOT SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 21 OF R.A. NO. 9165. THE LAW DID
NOT ONLY REQUIRE THAT THERE MUST BE A PUBLIC OFFICIAL, BUT THAT THE SAID
OFFICIAL MUST LIKEWISE BE AN ELECTED OFFICIAL.
(PP VS JAGDON GR NO. 234648, MAR 27, 2019)
WHEN ARE THE WITNESSES AND ACCUSED REQUIRED?
1. AT THE TIME OF THE WARRANTLESS ARREST (PP V. MENDOZA GR 192432 JUN

23, 2014)
2. AT THE TIME OF MARKING, PHOTOGRAPH AND INVENTORY
PURPOSE:
THE LAW REQUIRES THE PRESENCE OF THESE WITNESSES PRIMARILY "TO ENSURE
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY AND REMOVE ANY SUSPICION
OF SWITCHING, PLANTING, OR CONTAMINATION OF EVIDENCE.“
(PP V. MIRANDA GR NO. 229671 JAN 31, 2018; PP V. MENDOZA GR NO. 192432 JUN 23, 2014)
THE PRESENCE OF THE THREE WITNESSES WAS INTENDED AS A GUARANTEE

AGAINST PLANTING OF EVIDENCE AND FRAME UP, AS THEY WERE "NECESSARY TO
INSULATE THE APPREHENSION AND INCRIMINATION PROCEEDINGS FROM ANY
TAINT OF ILLEGITIMACY OR IRREGULARITY.“
(PP VS. SAGANA GR NO. 208471 AUG 2, 2017; PP VS. JODAN GR NO. 234773 JUN 3,
SECTION 21
SAVING CLAUSE WHICH CONSTITUTE JUSTIFIABLE REASONS FOR THE
ABSENCE OF ANY OF THE THREE WITNESSES:
(APPLICABLE ONLY AFTER EFFECTIVITY OF RA 10640 WHICH AMENDS RA 9165
SEC 21 PAR 1)
1. MEDIA REPRESENTATIVES ARE NOT AVAILABLE AT THAT TIME OR THAT

THE POLICE OPERATIVES HAD NO TIME TO ALERT THE MEDIA DUE TO
THE IMMEDIACY OF THE OPERATION THEY WERE ABOUT TO
UNDERTAKE, ESPECIALLY IF IT IS DONE IN MORE REMOTE AREAS;
2. THE POLICE OPERATIVES, WITH THE SAME REASON, FAILED TO FIND AN
AVAILABLE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE NATIONAL PROSECUTION
SERVICE;
3. THE POLICE OFFICERS, DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS BROUGHT ABOUT
BY THE URGENCY OF THE OPERATION TO BE UNDERTAKEN AND IN
ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 125 OF THE
REVISED PENAL CODE IN THE TIMELY DELIVERY OF PRISONERS, WERE
NOT ABLE TO COMPLY WITH ALL THE REQUISITES SET FORTH IN
SECTION 21 OF R.A. 9165.
(PP V. ANGELITA REYES, ET AL GR NO. 219953; APR 23, 2018)

SECTION 21
SAVING CLAUSE WHICH CONSTITUTE JUSTIFIABLE REASONS FOR THE ABSENCE OF
ANY OF THE THREE WITNESSES:
APPLICABLE ONLY AFTER EFFECTIVITY OF RA 10640 WHICH AMENDS RA 9165 SEC 21)
1. THEIR ATTENDANCE WAS IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE THE PLACE OF ARREST WAS A

REMOTE AREA;
2. THEIR SAFETY DURING THE INVENTORY AND PHOTOGRAPH OF THE SEIZED
DRUGS WAS THREATENED BY AN IMMEDIATE RETALIATORY ACTION OF THE
ACCUSED OR ANY PERSON/S ACTING FOR AND IN HIS/HER BEHALF;
3. THE ELECTED OFFICIAL THEMSELVES WERE INVOLVED IN THE PUNISHABLE
ACTS SOUGHT TO BE APPREHENDED;
4. EARNEST EFFORTS TO SECURE THE PRESENCE OF A DOJ OR MEDIA
REPRESENTATIVE AND AN ELECTED PUBLIC OFFICIAL WITHIN THE PERIOD
REQUIRED UNDER ARTICLE 125 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE PROVE FUTILE
THROUGH NO FAULT OF THE ARRESTING OFFICERS, WHO FACE THE THREAT OF
BEING CHARGED WITH ARBITRARY DETENTION; OR
5. TIME CONSTRAINTS AND URGENCY OF THE ANTI-DRUG OPERATIONS, WHICH
OFTEN RELY ON TIPS OF CONFIDENTIAL ASSETS, PREVENTED THE LAW
ENFORCERS FROM OBTAINING THE PRESENCE OF THE REQUIRED WITNESSES
EVEN BEFORE THE OFFENDERS COULD ESCAPE.
(PP VS. VICENTE SIPIN Y DE CASTRO GR NO. 224290; JUN 11, 2018; PP VS. LULU BATTUNG Y
NARMAR GR NO. 230717, JUN 20, 2018; PP VS. ROMY LIM Y MIRANDA GR NO. 231989 SEP 4,
2018)
SECTION 21
JUSTIFICATIONS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE COURT:
 MERE STATEMENTS OF UNAVAILABILITY, ABSENT ACTUAL SERIOUS ATTEMPTS TO CONTACT THE
REQUIRED WITNESSES, ARE UNACCEPTABLE AS JUSTIFIED GROUNDS FOR NON-COMPLIANCE
(PP VS UMIPANG GR NO. 190321, APR 25, 2012)
 CALLING THEM IN" TO THE PLACE OF INVENTORY TO WITNESS THE INVENTORY AND PHOTOGRAPHING
OF THE DRUGS ONLY AFTER THE BUY-BUST OPERATION HAS ALREADY BEEN FINISHED — DOES NOT
ACHIEVE THE PURPOSE OF THE LAW IN HAVING THESE WITNESSES PREVENT OR INSULATE AGAINST
THE PLANTING OF DRUGS.
 BECAUSE IT WAS ALLEGEDLY LATE IN THE EVENING AND RAINING; THERE WERE NO AVAILABLE MEDIA
REPRESENTATIVE OR BARANGAY OFFICIALS, DESPITE ALLEGED EFFORTS TO CONTACT THEM. THEY
MIGHT ALSO LEAK OUR INFORMATION.
(PP VS LIM GR NO. 231989 SEP 4, 2018)
THE COURT HELD THAT THE PROSECUTION MUST SHOW THAT EARNEST EFFORTS WERE EMPLOYED IN
CONTACTING THE WITNESSES REQUIRED UNDER THE LAW. CONSIDERING THAT BUY-BUST IS A PLANNED
OPERATION, "POLICE OFFICERS ARE GIVEN SUFFICIENT TIME TO PREPARE AND CONSEQUENTLY, MAKE THE
NECESSARY ARRANGEMENTS BEFOREHAND KNOWING FULL WELL THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO STRICTLY
COMPLY WITH THE SET PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 21, ARTICLE II OF RA 9165."[51] THEY ARE
THEREFORE COMPELLED "NOT ONLY TO STATE REASONS FOR THEIR NON-COMPLIANCE, BUT MUST IN
FACT, ALSO CONVINCE THE COURT THAT THEY EXERTED EARNEST EFFORTS TO COMPLY WITH THE
MANDATED PROCEDURE, AND THAT UNDER THE GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCE, THEIR ACTIONS WERE
REASONABLE."
(PP V. GAMBOA, G.R. NO. 233702, JUNE 20, 2018)
"A SHEER STATEMENT THAT REPRESENTATIVES WERE UNAVAILABLE WITHOUT SO MUCH AS AN

EXPLANATION ON WHETHER SERIOUS ATTEMPTS WERE EMPLOYED TO LOOK FOR OTHER
REPRESENTATIVES, GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES IS TO BE REGARDED AS A FLIMSY EXCUSE." (PP VS
UMIPANG GR NO. 190321, APR 25, 2012)
SECTION 21
CHAIN OFMARKING
CUSTODY – LINK 1
MARKING IS THE PLACING BY THE ARRESTING OFFICER OR
THE POSEUR-BUYER OF HIS/HER INITIALS AND SIGNATURE ON
THE ITEMS AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN SEIZED. IT IS THE
STARTING POINT IN THE CUSTODIAL LINK. IT IS VITAL THAT
THE SEIZED ITEMS BE MARKED IMMEDIATELY SINCE THE
SUCCEEDING HANDLERS THEREOF WILL USE THE MARKINGS
AS REFERENCE. LONG BEFORE CONGRESS PASSED R.A. NO.
9165, THIS COURT HAS CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT FAILURE OF
THE AUTHORITIES TO IMMEDIATELY MARK THE SEIZED DRUGS
CASTS REASONABLE DOUBT ON THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE
CORPUS DELICTI
(PP VS ALEJANDRO GR NO. 176350 AUG 10, 2011; PP VS SANCHEZ GR NO.
175832 OCT 15, 2008)
MARKING, WHICH IS THE AFFIXING ON THE DANGEROUS

DRUGS OR RELATED ITEMS BY THE APPREHENDING OFFICER
OR THE POSEUR-BUYER OF HIS INITIALS OR SIGNATURE OR
OTHER IDENTIFYING SIGNS
SECTION 21
MARKING
SECTION 21
PURPOSE:
THE MARKING OF THE EVIDENCE SERVES TO SEPARATE THE MARKED

EVIDENCE FROM THE CORPUS OF ALL OTHER SIMILAR OR RELATED
EVIDENCE FROM THE TIME THEY ARE SEIZED FROM THE ACCUSED UNTIL
THEY ARE DISPOSED OF AT THE END OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS,
THUS PREVENTING SWITCHING, "PLANTING," OR CONTAMINATION OF
EVIDENCE.
(PP V. CORECHE, G.R. NO. 182528, AUG 14, 2009; PP V. SABDULA GR NO.184758;
APR 21, 2014)
HOW DONE:
TO PREVENT SWITCHING OR CONTAMINATION, THE SEIZED ITEMS, WHICH

ARE FUNGIBLE
AND INDISTINCT IN CHARACTER, AND WHICH HAVE BEEN MARKED AFTER
THE SEIZURE, SHALL BE
SEALED IN A CONTAINER OR EVIDENCE BAG AND SIGNED BY THE
APPREHENDING/ SEIZING OFFICER FOR SUBMISSION TO THE FORENSIC
LABORATORY FOR EXAMINATION.
(GUIDELINES ON THE IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS (IRR) OF SECTION
21 OF RA NO. 9165 AS AMENDED BY RA NO. 10640 SEC 1 A.1.7)
SECTION 21
REQUIREMENTS OF MARKING
1. IMMEDIATENESS
AS A RULE, MARKING OF THE ILLEGAL DRUGS MUST BE DONE
IMMEDIATELY UPON CONFISCATION.
WHERE?
a. AT THE PLACE OF ARREST
b. AT THE NEAREST POLICE STATION OR OFFICE OF THE
APPREHENDING TEAM IF PRACTICABLE (IRR OF RA 9165 SEC 1
A.1.3)
WHEN NEAREST POLICE STATION APPLY:

1. ONLY FOR WARRANTLESS SEIZURE
2. UPON JUSTIFIABLE GROUNDS LIKE
• WHEN THE SAFETY AND SECURITY OF THE APPREHENDING
OFFICERS AND THE WITNESSES REQUIRED BY LAW OR OF THE
ITEMS SEIZED ARE THREATENED BY IMMEDIATE OR EXTREME
DANGER SUCH AS RETALIATORY ACTION OF THOSE WHO HAVE
THE RESOURCES AND CAPABILITY TO MOUNT A COUNTER-
ASSAULT.“
(PP V. LIM GR NO. 231989 SEP 4, 2018)
SECTION 21
REQUIREMENTS OF MARKING
2. IN THE PRESENCE AND SIGNED BY ACCUSED AND THE

WITNESSES
• THE ACCUSED MAY BE REPRESENTED BY HIS/HER

REPRESENTATIVE OR HIS/HER COUNSEL
• THE WITNESSES REQUIREMENT WILL DEPEND ON THE
DATE OF COMMISSION OF THE CRIME
o BEFORE THE EFFECTIVITY OF RA 10640 IT HAS TO
BE IN THE PRESENCE OF A) MEDIA B) DOJ AND C)
ELECTED PUBLIC OFFICIAL
o AFTER THE EFFECTIVITY OF RA 10640 ON JULY 15,
2014, IT HAS TO BE IN THE PRESENCE OF A)
ELECTED PUBLIC OFFICIAL B) NATIONAL
PROSECUTION SERVICE (DOJ) OR REPRESENTATIVE
OF MEDIA
SECTION 21
PHOTOGRAPH AND INVENTORY
SECTION 21
PHOTOGRAPH AND INVENTORY
FORM P (INVENTORY COUNT SHEET, ANNEX P) – THIS IS THE FORM IN FOUR (4) COPIES WHICH
RECORD THE PHYSICAL COUNT OF THE EVIDENCE. THE COPIES ARE DISTRIBUTED AS FOLLOWS:
1) ORIGINAL – AGENCY COPY (DDB)2) DUPLICATE – PDEA COPY 3)TRIPLICATE – OTHER
PARTICIPATING AGENCY COPY 4) QUADRUPLICATE – OTHER PARTICIPATION AGENCY COPY (DDB
BOARD REGULATION NO. 1 SERIES OF 2017)
SECTION 21
REQUIREMENTS OF PHOTOGRAPH AND INVENTORY
1. IMMEDIATENESS
AS A RULE, IMMEDIATELY AFTER OR AT THE PLACE OF APPREHENSION
WHERE?
a. AT THE PLACE OF ARREST AND/OR SEIZURE
b. AT THE NEAREST POLICE STATION OR OFFICE OF THE
APPREHENDING TEAM IF PRACTICABLE (IRR OF RA 9165 SEC 1
A.1.3)
WHEN NEAREST POLICE STATION APPLY:

1. ONLY FOR WARRANTLESS SEIZURE
2. UPON JUSTIFIABLE GROUNDS LIKE
• WHEN THE SAFETY AND SECURITY OF THE APPREHENDING
OFFICERS AND THE WITNESSES REQUIRED BY LAW OR OF THE
ITEMS SEIZED ARE THREATENED BY IMMEDIATE OR EXTREME
DANGER SUCH AS RETALIATORY ACTION OF THOSE WHO HAVE
THE RESOURCES AND CAPABILITY TO MOUNT A COUNTER-
ASSAULT.“
(PP V. LIM GR NO. 231989 SEP 4, 2018)
SECTION 21
REQUIREMENTS OF PHOTOGRAPH AND INVENTORY
2. IN THE PRESENCE OF ACCUSED AND THE WITNESSES
• THE ACCUSED MAY BE REPRESENTED BY HIS/HER REPRESENTATIVE

OR HIS/HER COUNSEL
• THE WITNESSES REQUIREMENT WILL DEPEND ON THE DATE OF
COMMISSION OF THE CRIME
o BEFORE THE EFFECTIVITY OF RA 10640 IT HAS TO BE IN THE
PRESENCE OF A) MEDIA B) DOJ AND C) ELECTED PUBLIC
OFFICIAL
o AFTER THE EFFECTIVITY OF RA 10640 ON JULY 15, 2014, IT
HAS TO BE IN THE PRESENCE OF A) ELECTED PUBLIC
OFFICIAL B) NATIONAL PROSECUTION SERVICE (DOJ) OR
REPRESENTATIVE OF MEDIA
3. INVENTORY SHEET MUST BE SIGNED BY THE ACCUSED AND THE

WITNESSES AND COPIES BE
GIVEN TO WITNESSES
(SEC 21 PAR 1 OF RA 9165 AS AMENDED BY RA 10640)
SECTION 21
IS NON-COMPLIANCE WITH PHOTOGRAPH AND INVENTORY WARRANTS
ACQUITTAL
THE PROCEDURE IN SECTION 21 OF R.A. NO. 9165 IS A MATTER OF

SUBSTANTIVE LAW, AND CANNOT BE BRUSHED ASIDE AS A SIMPLE
PROCEDURAL TECHNICALITY; OR WORSE, IGNORED AS AN IMPEDIMENT
TO THE CONVICTION OF ILLEGAL DRUG SUSPECTS. WHILE THE NON-
COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 21 IS NOT FATAL TO THE PROSECUTION'S
CASE, PROVIDED THAT THE INTEGRITY AND EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF THE
SEIZED ITEMS ARE PROPERLY PRESERVED BY THE APPREHENDING
OFFICERS, THIS EXCEPTION WILL ONLY BE TRIGGERED BY THE EXISTENCE
OF A GROUND THAT JUSTIFIES DEPARTURE FROM THE GENERAL RULE.
THE SAVING CLAUSE APPLIES ONLY:
(1) WHERE THE PROSECUTION RECOGNIZED THE PROCEDURAL LAPSES

AND, THEREAFTER, EXPLAINED THE CITED JUSTIFIABLE GROUNDS, AND
(2) WHEN THE PROSECUTION ESTABLISHED THAT THE INTEGRITY AND
EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF THE EVIDENCE SEIZED HAD BEEN PRESERVED
(PP VS GERONIMO GR NO. 225500 SEPT 11, 2017)
SECTION 21
SECOND LINK:
THE SECOND LINK IN THE CHAIN OF

CUSTODY IS THE TRANSFER OF THE
SEIZED DRUGS BY THE
APPREHENDING OFFICER TO THE
INVESTIGATING OFFICER. THE
INVESTIGATING OFFICER SHALL
CONDUCT THE PROPER
INVESTIGATION AND PREPARE THE
NECESSARY DOCUMENTS FOR THE
PROPER TRANSFER OF THE
EVIDENCE TO THE POLICE CRIME
LABORATORY FOR TESTING. THUS,
THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER'S
POSSESSION OF THE SEIZED DRUGS
MUST BE DOCUMENTED AND
ESTABLISHED.
SECTION 21
THIRD LINK: THE SUBSTANCE.
THE THIRD LINK IN THE CHAIN

OF CUSTODY IS THE DELIVERY
BY THE INVESTIGATING
OFFICER OF THE ILLEGAL
DRUG TO THE FORENSIC
CHEMIST. ONCE THE SEIZED
DRUGS ARRIVE AT THE
FORENSIC LABORATORY, IT
WILL BE THE LABORATORY
TECHNICIAN WHO WILL TEST
AND VERIFY THE NATURE OF
SECTION 21
FOURTH LINK: CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF THE
SUBJECT SPECIMEN.
THE LAST LINK INVOLVES THE
SUBMISSION OF THE SEIZED DRUGS BY
THE FORENSIC CHEMIST TO THE COURT
WHEN PRESENTED AS EVIDENCE IN THE
CRIMINAL CASE.
IN DRUG RELATED CASES, IT IS OF
PARAMOUNT NECESSITY THAT THE
FORENSIC CHEMIST TESTIFIES AS TO
DETAILS PERTINENT TO THE HANDLING
AND ANALYSIS OF THE DANGEROUS
DRUG SUBMITTED FOR EXAMINATION
I.E. WHEN AND FROM WHOM THE
DANGEROUS DRUG WAS RECEIVED;
WHAT IDENTIFYING LABELS OR OTHER
THINGS ACCOMPANIED IT; DESCRIPTION
OF THE SPECIMEN; AND THE CONTAINER
IT WAS IN, AS THE CASE MAY BE.
FURTHER, THE FORENSIC CHEMIST MUST
ALSO IDENTIFY THE NAME AND METHOD
OF ANALYSIS USED IN DETERMINING THE
SECTION 21
UPDATE
CHAIN OF CUSTODY
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 251-2018
NOVEMBER 29, 2018
FOR STRICT OBSERVANCE OF ALL SECOND LEVEL COURT THE MANDATORY POLICY
THAT SHALL GOVERN THE PRACTICE IN MAINTAINING THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY TO
PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY AND EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF SEIZED/ CONFISCATED
ILLEGAL DRUGS AND OTHER DRUG RELATED ITEM
1. IN THE SWORN STATEMENTS/AFFIDAVITS, THE APPREHENDING/SEIZING
OFFICERS MUST STATE THEIR COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF
SECTION 21(1) OF RA 9165, AS AMENDED, AND ITS IRR.
2. IN CASE OF NON-OBSERVANCE OF THE PROVISION, THE
APPREHENDING/SEIZING OFFICERS MUST STATE THE JUSTIFICATION OR
EXPLANATION THEREFOR AS WELL AS THE STEPS THEY HAVE TAKEN IN ORDER
TO PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY AND EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF THE
SEIZED/CONFISCATED ITEMS.
3. IF THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION OR EXPLANATION EXPRESSLY DECLARED IN THE
SWORN STATEMENTS OR AFFIDAVITS, THE INVESTIGATING FISCAL MUST NOT
IMMEDIATELY FILE THE CASE BEFORE THE COURT. INSTEAD, HE OR SHE MUST
REFER THE CASE FOR FURTHER PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION IN ORDER TO
DETERMINE THE (NON) EXISTENCE OF PROBABLE CAUSE.
4. IF THE INVESTIGATING FISCAL FILED THE CASE DESPITE SUCH ABSENCE, THE
COURT MAY EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION TO EITHER REFUSE TO ISSUE A
COMMITMENT ORDER (OR WARRANT OF ARREST) OR DISMISS THE CASE
OUTRIGHT FOR LACK OF PROBABLE CAUSE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 5,
SECTION 21
CHAIN OF CUSTODY
SOME IMPORTANT THINGS ABOUT CHAIN OF CUSTODY:
PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY IN THE PERFORMANCE OF DUTY
“WHENEVER THERE IS AN UNJUSTIFIED NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE CHAIN OF
CUSTODY REQUIREMENTS, THE PROSECUTION CANNOT INVOKE THE
PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY IN THE PERFORMANCE OF OFFICIAL DUTY TO
CONVENIENTLY DISREGARD SUCH LAPSE. NONCOMPLIANCE OBLITERATES PROOF
OF GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, WARRANTING AN ACCUSED'S ACQUITTAL.
THUS, THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE PREVAILS.”
– J. LEONEN:
PP VS. DELA CRUZ GR NO. 229053 JUL 17, 2019
PEOPLE V. KAMAD GR NO. 174198; JAN 19, 2010.. EXPLAINED THAT THE PRESUMPTION
OF REGULARITY APPLIES ONLY WHEN OFFICERS HAVE SHOWN COMPLIANCE WITH
"THE STANDARD CONDUCT OF OFFICIAL DUTY REQUIRED BY LAW." IT IS NOT A
JUSTIFICATION FOR DISPENSING WITH SUCH COMPLIANCE
A PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY IN THE PERFORMANCE OF OFFICIAL DUTY IS

MADE IN THE CONTEXT OF AN EXISTING RULE OF LAW OR STATUTE AUTHORIZING
THE PERFORMANCE OF AN ACT OR DUTY OR PRESCRIBING A PROCEDURE IN THE
PERFORMANCE THEREOF. THE PRESUMPTION APPLIES WHEN NOTHING IN THE
RECORD SUGGESTS THAT THE LAW ENFORCERS DEVIATED FROM THE STANDARD
CONDUCT OF OFFICIAL DUTY REQUIRED BY LAW; WHERE THE OFFICIAL ACT IS
IRREGULAR ON ITS FACE, THE PRESUMPTION CANNOT ARISE – J. LEONEN
PP VS. DELA CRUZ GR NO. 229053 JUL 17, 2019
SECTION 21
CHAIN OF CUSTODY
SOME IMPORTANT THINGS ABOUT CHAIN OF CUSTODY
BUY BUST OPERATION

A BUY-BUST OPERATION IS A LEGALLY EFFECTIVE AND PROVEN PROCEDURE,
SANCTIONED BY LAW, FOR APPREHENDING DRUG PEDDLERS AND DISTRIBUTORS. IT IS
OFTEN UTILIZED BY LAW ENFORCERS FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRAPPING AND
CAPTURING LAWBREAKERS IN THE EXECUTION OF THEIR NEFARIOUS ACTIVITIES.
IS PDEA AN INDISPENSABLE REQUIREMENT IN BUY-BUST?
IN PEOPLE V. ROA GR NO. 186134 MAY 6, 2010, COORDINATION WITH THE PDEA IS
NOT AN INDISPENSABLE REQUIREMENT BEFORE POLICE AUTHORITIES MAY CARRY
OUT A BUY-BUST OPERATION. WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT SECTION 86 OF REPUBLIC ACT
NO. 9165 REQUIRES THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, PNP AND THE
BUREAU OF CUSTOMS TO MAINTAIN "CLOSE COORDINATION WITH THE PDEA ON ALL
DRUG-RELATED MATTERS," THE PROVISION DOES NOT, BY SO SAYING, MAKE PDEA'S
PARTICIPATION A CONDITION SINE QUA NON FOR EVERY BUY-BUST OPERATION. AFTER
ALL, A BUY-BUST IS JUST A FORM OF AN IN FLAGRANTE ARREST SANCTIONED BY
SECTION 5, RULE 11315 OF THE RULES OF THE COURT, WHICH POLICE AUTHORITIES
MAY RIGHTFULLY RESORT TO IN APPREHENDING VIOLATORS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO.
9165 IN SUPPORT OF THE PDEA.16 A BUY-BUST OPERATION IS NOT INVALIDATED BY
MERE NON-COORDINATION WITH THE PDEA.
SECTION 21
CHAIN OF CUSTODY

BUY BUST OPERATION
IS THE LACK OF PRIOR SURVEILLANCE FATAL IN BUY-BUST OPERATIONS?
IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT PRIOR SURVEILLANCE IS NOT A PREREQUISITE

FOR THE VALIDITY OF AN ENTRAPMENT OPERATION, ESPECIALLY WHEN
THE BUY-BUST TEAM MEMBERS WERE ACCOMPANIED TO THE SCENE BY
THEIR INFORMANT. THIS COURT HELD IN PEOPLE V. TRANCA (1994) THAT
THERE IS NO RIGID OR TEXTBOOK METHOD OF CONDUCTING BUY-BUST
OPERATIONS. FLEXIBILITY IS A TRAIT OF GOOD POLICE WORK. THE POLICE
OFFICERS MAY DECIDE THAT TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE AND DISPENSE
WITH THE NEED FOR PRIOR SURVEILLANCE.
(PP V. LACBANES GR NO. 88684 MAR 20, 1997)
SECTION 21
CHAIN OF CUSTODY
BUY BUST OPERATION
BUY-BUST MONEY IS IT INDISPENSABLE EVIDENCE?
THERE ARE NO PROVISIONS EITHER IN REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165 OR ITS

IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS REQUIRING THAT THE BUY-BUST
MONEY TO BE USED IN THE ACTUAL BUY-BUST OPERATION MUST BE DUSTED
WITH ULTRA-VIOLET POWDER. THE USE OF DUSTED MONEY ARE NOT
INDISPENSABLE TO PROVE THE ILLEGAL SALE OF SHABU. THIS IS NOT PART OF THE
ELEMENTS OF THE AFORESAID OFFENSE. TO REPEAT, IN A PROSECUTION FOR
ILLEGAL SALE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS, LIKE SHABU, WHAT IS IMPORTANT IS THE
FACT THAT THE POSEUR-BUYER RECEIVED SHABU FROM THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT
AND THE SAME WAS PRESENTED AS EVIDENCE IN COURT.
SIMILARLY, THE ABSENCE OF MARKED MONEY DOES NOT CREATE A HIATUS IN THE
EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION PROVIDED THAT THE PROSECUTION HAS
ADEQUATELY PROVED THE SALE. HENCE, THE ONLY ELEMENTS NECESSARY TO
CONSUMMATE THE CRIME OF ILLEGAL SALE OF SHABU IS PROOF THAT THE ILLICIT
TRANSACTION TOOK PLACE, COUPLED WITH THE PRESENTATION IN COURT OF THE
CORPUS DELICTI OR THE ILLICIT DRUG AS EVIDENCE.
(PP VS UNISA GR NO. 185721 SEP 28, 2011)
SECTION 21
CHAIN OF CUSTODY
BUY BUST OPERATION
POSEUR-BUYER IS HE REQUIRED TO TESTIFY?
THE COURT EXPLAINED THAT WHILE THE NON-PRESENTATION OF THE

POSEUR-BUYER IS, PER SE, NOT NECESSARILY FATAL TO THE CAUSE OF THE
PROSECUTION, THERE MUST BE AT LEAST SOMEONE ELSE WHO IS
COMPETENT TO TESTIFY AS TO THE FACT THAT THE SALE TRANSACTION
INDEED OCCURRED BETWEEN THE POSEUR-BUYER AND THE ACCUSED.
OTHERWISE, THE TESTIMONIES OF THE OTHER WITNESSES REGARDING
THE MATTER BECOME HEARSAY, AND THUS, INADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE
THE NON-PRESENTATION OF THE POSEUR-BUYER WAS FATAL TO THE
PROSECUTION AS NOBODY COULD COMPETENTLY TESTIFY ON THE FACT
OF SALE BETWEEN BARTOLINI AND THE POSEUR-BUYER.
(PP VS BERNABE M. BARTOLINI GR NO. 215192 JULY 27, 2016)
Case 2:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE VS.
ROMY LIM Y MIRANDA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT
G.R. NO. 231989
SEPTEMBER 4, 2018
PONENTE: CJ PERALTA
ISSUE:
HOW IS THE SAVING CLAUSE OF THE RA 9165 BE

INTERPRETED?
Case 2:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE VS.
ROMY LIM Y MIRANDA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT
G.R. NO. 231989
SEPTEMBER 4, 2018
PONENTE: CJ PERALTA
ANY JUSTIFICATION OR EXPLANATION IN CASES OF NONCOMPLIANCE

WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 2I (1) OF R.A. NO. 9I65, AS
AMENDED, SHALL BE CLEARLY STATED IN THE SWORN
STATEMENTS/AFFIDAVITS OF THE APPREHENDING/SEIZING OFFICERS, AS
WELL AS THE STEPS TAKEN TO PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY AND
EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF THE SEIZED/CONFISCATED ITEMS. CERTIFICATION
OR RECORD OF COORDINATION FOR OPERATING UNITS OTHER THAN THE
PDEA PURSUANT TO SECTION 86 (A) AND (B), ARTICLE IX OF THE IRR OF
R.A. NO. 9I65 SHALL BE PRESENTED.
Case 3:
JUNIE MALILLIN Y. LOPEZ, PETITIONER, VS.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
G.R. NO. 172953
APRIL 30, 2008
PONENTE: J. TINGA
ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT MINISCULE AMOUNT OF ILLEGAL DRUGS
JUSTIFY A DEVIATION IN THE PROCEDURE OF SEC 21 OF RA
9165?
Case 3:
JUNIE MALILLIN Y. LOPEZ, PETITIONER, VS.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
G.R. NO. 172953
APRIL 30, 2008
PONENTE: J. TINGA

"THE LIKELIHOOD OF TAMPERING, LOSS OR MISTAKE WITH RESPECT TO AN EXHIBIT
IS GREATEST WHEN THE EXHIBIT IS SMALL AND IS ONE THAT HAS PHYSICAL
CHARACTERISTICS FUNGIBLE IN NATURE AND SIMILAR IN FORM TO SUBSTANCES
FAMILIAR TO PEOPLE IN THEIR DAILY LIVES.“
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.
SECTION 22
GRANT OF COMPENSATION, REWARD AND AWARD
“THE BOARD SHALL RECOMMEND TO THE CONCERNED

GOVERNMENT AGENCY THE GRANT OF COMPENSATION,
REWARD AND AWARD TO ANY PERSON PROVIDING
INFORMATION AND TO LAW ENFORCERS PARTICIPATING IN
THE OPERATION, WHICH RESULTS IN THE SUCCESSFUL
CONFISCATION, SEIZURE OR SURRENDER OF DANGEROUS
DRUGS, PLANT SOURCES OF DANGEROUS DRUGS, AND
CONTROLLED PRECURSORS AND ESSENTIAL CHEMICALS.”
SECTION 23
PLEA-BARGAINING PROVISION. – ANY

PERSON CHARGED UNDER ANY
PROVISION OF THIS ACT REGARDLESS OF
THE IMPOSABLE PENALTY SHALL NOT BE
ALLOWED TO AVAIL OF THE PROVISION
ON PLEA-BARGAINING.
SECTION 23
PLEA-BARGAINING PROVISION
INAPPLICABILITY OF PLEA BARGAINING IN SEC 23 OF RA 9165
HAS BEEN ABANDONED SINCE THE PROMULGATION OF THE
DECISION IN
SALVADOR ESTIPONA, JR. Y ASUELA VS.

HON. FRANK E. LOBRIGO, PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 3, LEGAZPI CITY, ALBAY,
AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
GR NO. 226679
AUGUST 15, 2017
SUPREME COURT EN BANC
PENNED BY CURRENT CJ D. PERALTA
“DECLARING SECTION 23 OF RA 9165 AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

FOR BEING CONTRARY TO THE RULE-MAKING AUTHORITY OF
THE SUPREME COURT UNDER SEC 5(5), ARTICLE VIII OF THE
1987 CONSTITUTION”
SECTION 23
WHAT IS PLEA-BARGAINING? FYI
PLEA BARGAINING HAS BEEN DEFINED AS "A PROCESS WHEREBY THE
ACCUSED AND THE PROSECUTION WORK OUT A MUTUALLY SATISFACTORY
DISPOSITION OF THE CASE SUBJECT TO COURT APPROVAL."
CHARACTERISTIC
THERE IS GIVE-AND-TAKE NEGOTIATION COMMON IN PLEA BARGAINING.
THE ESSENCE OF THE AGREEMENT IS THAT BOTH THE PROSECUTION AND
THE DEFENSE MAKE CONCESSIONS TO AVOID POTENTIAL LOSSES.
PROPERLY ADMINISTERED, PLEA BARGAINING IS TO BE ENCOURAGED
BECAUSE THE CHIEF VIRTUES OF THE SYSTEM - SPEED, ECONOMY, AND
FINALITY - CAN BENEFIT THE ACCUSED, THE OFFENDED PARTY, THE
PROSECUTION, AND THE COURT.
RULES OF COURT
RULE 116 SEC 2. FOR PLEA-BARGAINING AFTER ARRAIGNMENT BUT
BEFORE TRIAL
RULE 118 SEC 1. FOR PLEA-BARGAINING AS MANDATORY REQUIREMENT
IN PRE-TRIAL (AFTER ARRAIGNMENT AND WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE
DATE THE COURT ACQUIRES JURISDICTION OF THE PERSON OF THE
ACCUSED)
REFERENCE: ESTIPONO JR. VS. LOBRIGO (GR 226679 AUG 15, 2017)
SECTION 23
PLEA-BARGAINING PROCESS
A DEFENDANT HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PLEA

BARGAIN. NO BASIC RIGHTS ARE INFRINGED BY TRYING HIM
RATHER THAN ACCEPTING A PLEA OF GUILTY; THE
PROSECUTOR NEED NOT DO SO IF HE PREFERS TO GO TO
TRIAL.
UNDER THE PRESENT RULES, THE ACCEPTANCE OF AN OFFER

TO PLEAD GUILTY IS NOT A DEMANDABLE RIGHT BUT
DEPENDS ON THE CONSENT OF THE OFFENDED PARTY AND
THE PROSECUTOR, WHICH IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO A
VALID PLEA OF GUILTY TO A LESSER OFFENSE THAT IS
NECESSARILY INCLUDED IN THE OFFENSE CHARGED.
THE REASON FOR THIS IS THAT THE PROSECUTOR HAS FULL

CONTROL OF THE PROSECUTION OF CRIMINAL ACTIONS; HIS
DUTY IS TO ALWAYS PROSECUTE THE PROPER OFFENSE, NOT
SECTION 23PROCESS
PLEA-BARGAINING
AFTER THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE OFFENDED PARTY AND THE PROSECUTOR,
THE PLEA IS FURTHER ADDRESSED TO THE SOUND DISCRETION OF THE TRIAL
COURT, WHICH MAY ALLOW THE ACCUSED TO PLEAD GUILTY TO A LESSER
OFFENSE WHICH IS NECESSARILY INCLUDED IN THE OFFENSE CHARGED. THE
WORD MAY DENOTES AN EXERCISE OF DISCRETION UPON THE TRIAL COURT
ON WHETHER TO ALLOW THE ACCUSED TO MAKE SUCH PLEA. TRIAL COURTS
ARE EXHORTED TO KEEP IN MIND THAT A PLEA OF GUILTY FOR A LIGHTER
OFFENSE THAN THAT ACTUALLY CHARGED IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ALLOWED
AS A MATTER OF BARGAINING OR COMPROMISE FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF
THE ACCUSED.
PLEA BARGAINING IS ALLOWED DURING THE ARRAIGNMENT, THE PRE-TRIAL,

OR EVEN UP TO THE POINT WHEN THE PROSECUTION ALREADY RESTED ITS
CASE. AS REGARDS PLEA BARGAINING DURING THE PRE-TRIAL STAGE, THE
TRIAL COURT'S EXERCISE OF DISCRETION SHOULD NOT AMOUNT TO A GRAVE
ABUSE THEREOF.
"GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION" IS A CAPRICIOUS AND WHIMSICAL EXERCISE

OF JUDGMENT SO PATENT AND GROSS AS TO AMOUNT TO AN EVASION OF A
POSITIVE DUTY OR A VIRTUAL REFUSAL TO PERFORM A DUTY ENJOINED BY
LAW, AS WHERE THE POWER IS EXERCISED IN AN ARBITRARY AND DESPOTIC
SECTION 23
PLEA-BARGAINING PROCESS
IF THE ACCUSED MOVED TO PLEAD GUILTY TO A LESSER OFFENSE

SUBSEQUENT TO A BAIL HEARING OR AFTER THE PROSECUTION RESTED
ITS CASE, THE RULES ALLOW SUCH A PLEA ONLY WHEN THE
PROSECUTION DOES NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THE
GUILT OF THE CRIME CHARGED.
THE ONLY BASIS ON WHICH THE PROSECUTOR AND THE COURT COULD
RIGHTFULLY ACT IN ALLOWING CHANGE IN THE FORMER PLEA OF NOT
GUILTY COULD BE NOTHING MORE AND NOTHING LESS THAN THE
EVIDENCE ON RECORD. AS SOON AS THE PROSECUTOR HAS SUBMITTED
A COMMENT WHETHER FOR OR AGAINST SAID MOTION, IT BEHOOVES
THE TRIAL COURT TO ASSIDUOUSLY STUDY THE PROSECUTION'S
EVIDENCE AS WELL AS ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES UPON WHICH THE
ACCUSED MADE HIS CHANGE OF PLEA TO THE END THAT THE INTERESTS
OF JUSTICE AND OF THE PUBLIC WILL BE SERVED.
THE RULING ON THE MOTION MUST DISCLOSE THE STRENGTH OR

WEAKNESS OF THE PROSECUTION'S EVIDENCE. ABSENT ANY FINDING ON
THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ON HAND, THE JUDGE'S ACCEPTANCE OF
SECTION 23
“OCA CIRCULAR NO. 90-2018”
EFFECTIVE MAY 4, 2018
COURT EN BANC ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER NO. 18-03-16 Adoption of the Plea Bargaining Framework in
Drug Cases
Offense Charged Acceptable Plea Bargain
Section Penalty Quantity Section Penalty
Sec 11. Par 3 Possession of 12yrs & 1day to 20yrs 0.01 gram to Sec 12. Possession of 6 mos & 1day to 4yrs
Dangerous Drugs (For Shabu, and fine from 4.99 grams Equipment, Instrument, and fine from P10,000 to
Opium, Morphine, Heroin, P300,000 to P400,000 Apparatus and other P50,000
Cocaine) paraphernalia for Dangerous If + in drug test – 6mos
Drug Rehab (credited to his
penalty)
If – in drug test – serve
sentence plus can apply
for Probation (except in
Sec 5 in relation to Sec
24)
Sec 11. Par 3 Possession of 12yrs & 1day to 20yrs 0.01 gram to Sec 12. Possession of 6 mos & 1day to 4yrs
Dangerous Drugs (For and fine from 299.99 grams Equipment, Instrument, and fine from P10,000 to
Marijuana) P300,000 to P400,000 Apparatus and other P50,000
paraphernalia for Dangerous If + in drug test – 6mos
Drug Rehab (credited to his
penalty)
If – in drug test – serve
sentence plus can apply
for Probation (except in
Sec 5 in relation to Sec
24)
SECTION 23
COURT EN BANC ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER NO. 18-03-16 Adoption of the Plea Bargaining Framework in Drug
Cases

Sec 11 Par 2. Possession 20yrs to Life 5 grams to 9.99 Sec 11 Par. 3 12yrs & 1day to 20yrs and fine from
of Dangerous Drugs (For Imprisonment and grams Possession of P300,000 to P400,000
Shabu, Opium, Morphine, Fine P400,000 to Dangerous Drugs
Heroin, Cocaine) P500,000 PROBATION is allowed for Shabu
only
Sec 11 Par 2. Possession 20yrs to Life 10 grams and NO PLEA BARGAINING

of Dangerous Drugs (For Imprisonment and above ALLOWED
Shabu, Opium, Morphine, Fine P400,000 to
Heroin, Cocaine) P500,000
Sec 11 Par 2. Possession 20yrs to Life 300 grams to Sec 11 Par. 3 12yrs & 1day to 20yrs and fine from
of Dangerous Drugs (For Imprisonment and 499 grams Possession of P300,000 to P400,000
Marijuana) Fine P400,000 to Dangerous Drugs
P500,000 PROBATION is allowed for Marijuana
only
Sec 11 Par 2. Possession 20yrs to Life 500 grams and NO PLEA BARGAINING
of Dangerous Drugs (For Imprisonment and above ALLOWED
Marijuana) Fine P400,000 to
P500,000
SECTION 23
COURT EN BANC ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER NO. 18-03-16 Adoption of the Plea Bargaining Framework in Drug Cases
Sec 12. Possession of 6 mos & 1day to Sec 15. Use of If + in drug test - 6 mos treatment and
Equipment, apparatus and other 4yrs and fine Dangerous Drugs rehabilitation OR
Paraphernalia for Dangerous P10,000 to If – in Drug test - Undergo counseling
Drugs P50,000 program at Rehabilitation Center
Sec 14. Possession of Maximum penalty Sec 15. Use of If + in drug test - 6 mos treatment and
Equipment, apparatus and other in Sec 12 Dangerous Drugs rehabilitation OR
Paraphernalia for Dangerous If – in Drug test - Undergo counseling
Drugs during parties, social program at Rehabilitation Center
gatherings and meetings
Sec 5. Sale, Trading, etc. of Life imprisonment 0.01 to 0.99 Sec 12. Possession of 6 mos & 1day to 4yrs and fine
Dangerous Drugs (Shabu Only) to Death and fine grams (Shabu Equipment, apparatus P10,000 to P50,000
P500K to P10M only) and other AND
Paraphernalia for If + in drug test – 6mos Rehab
Dangerous Drugs (credited to his penalty)
If – in drug test – serve sentence
Both instances can apply for

Probation (except in Sec 5 in relation
to Sec 24)
SECTION 23
COURT EN BANC ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER NO. 18-03-16 Adoption of the Plea Bargaining
Framework in Drug Cases
Sec 5. Sale, Trading, etc. Life imprisonment to 1 gram and NO PLEA BARGAINING
of Dangerous Drugs Death and fine P500K above (Shabu ALLOWED
(Shabu Only) to P10M only)
Sec 5. Sale, Trading, etc. Life imprisonment to 0.01 gram to Sec 12. Possession of 6 mos & 1day to 4yrs and fine
of Dangerous Drugs Death and fine P500K 9.99 grams of Equipment, apparatus P10,000 to P50,000
(Marijuana Only) to P10M Marijuana ONLY and other AND
Paraphernalia for If + in drug test – 6mos Rehab
Dangerous Drugs (credited to his penalty
If – in drug test – serve sentence

to Sec 24)
Sec 5. Sale, Trading, etc. Life imprisonment to 10 grams or NO PLEA BARGAINING

of Dangerous Drugs Death and fine P500K more ALLOWED
(Marijuana Only) to P10M
Sec 5. Sale, Trading, etc. Life imprisonment to NO PLEA BARGAINING

of Dangerous Drugs (All Death and fine P500K ALLOWED
other kinds of Dangerous to P10M
drugs)
SECTION 23
UPDATE!
“OCA CIRCULAR NO. 104-2019
EFFECTIVE JUNE 4, 2019
COURT EN BANC ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER NO. 18-03-16 Adoption of the Plea Bargaining Framework in Drug
Cases
Sec 13. Possession of Maximum penalty of 0.01 grams to Sec 12. Possession of 6 mos & 1day to 4yrs and fine
Dangerous Drugs during Sec 11 regardless of 4.99 grams Equipment, apparatus P10,000 to P50,000
parties, social gatherings Qty or purity and other If + in drug test – 6mos Rehab
or Meetings in relation to Paraphernalia for (credited to his penalty)
Sec 11 Dangerous Drugs If – in drug test – serve sentence

to Sec 24)
Sec 13. Possession of Maximum penalty of 5 grams to 9.99 Sec 11, Par 3 12yrs & 1day to 20yrs and fine
Dangerous Drugs during Sec 11 regardless of grams Possession of P300,000 to P400,000
parties, social gatherings Qty or purity Dangerous Drugs
or Meetings in relation to Can apply for Probation (except in
Sec 11 Sec 5 in relation to Sec 24)
Sec 13. Possession of Maximum penalty of 10 grams and NO PLEA BARGAINING

Dangerous Drugs during Sec 11 regardless of above ALLOWED
parties, social gatherings Qty or purity
or Meetings in relation to
Sec 11
SECTION 23
UPDATE!
COURT EN BANC ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER NO. 18-03-16 Adoption of the Plea Bargaining Framework in
Drug Cases
Sec 13. Possession of Maximum penalty 0.01 grams to Sec 12. 6 mos & 1day to 4yrs and fine
Dangerous Drugs of Sec 11 299 grams Possession of P10,000 to P50,000
during parties, social regardless of Qty (Marijuana Equipment, If + in drug test – 6mos Rehab
gatherings or Meetings or purity Only) apparatus and (credited to his penalty)
in relation to Sec 11 other If – in drug test – serve sentence
Paraphernalia
for Dangerous Both instances can apply for
Drugs Probation (except in Sec 5 in relation
to Sec 24)
Sec 13. Possession of Maximum penalty 300 grams to Sec 11, Par 3 12yrs & 1day to 20yrs and fine
Dangerous Drugs of Sec 11 499 grams Possession of P300,000 to P400,000
during parties, social regardless of Qty (Marijuana Dangerous
gatherings or Meetings or purity only) Drugs
Sec 13. Possession of Maximum penalty 500 grams NO PLEA

Dangerous Drugs of Sec 11 and above BARGAINING
during parties, social regardless of Qty (Marijuana) ALLOWED
gatherings or Meetings or purity
SECTION 23
UPDATE!
COURT EN BANC ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER NO. 18-03-16 Adoption of the Plea Bargaining
Framework in Drug Cases
Sec 7 Employees 12yrs and 1 Sec 12 Sec 12. 6 mos & 1day to 4yrs
and visitors of a day to 20yrs Possession of and fine P10,000 to
den, dive or and fine of Equipment, P50,000
resort P100,000 to apparatus and If + in drug test – 6mos
(Provided P500,000 other Rehab (credited to his
accused is Paraphernalia penalty
charged only of for Dangerous If – in drug test – serve
Sec 7 and no Drugs sentence
other person is
charged of Sec 6 Both instances can apply
maintenance of for Probation (except in
den, dive or Sec 5 in relation to Sec
resort) 24)
Case 1:
People of the Philippines vs.
Sherwin P. Felonia
Regional Trial Court Branch 15 of Davao City
Criminal Case No. 17-03548-CR
ISSUE:
SALE OF NALBUPHINE HYDROCHLORIDE AS CHARGED
FOR SEC 5 OF RA 9165 AS A REGULATED DRUG BE
INCLUDED IN THE COVERAGE OF AM NO. 18-03-16-
SC DATED 10 APRIL 2018 AND BE SUBJECT TO PLEA
BARGAINING AGREEMENT AND BE GIVEN THE
CHANCE TO AVAIL PROBATION AND START A NEW
LIFE?
Case 1:
People of the Philippines vs.
Sherwin P. Felonia
Regional Trial Court Branch 15 of Davao City
Criminal Case No. 17-03548-CR
RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT: (AS PER RESOLUTION OF SC EN BANC

DATED APRIL 02, 2019)
DESPITE THE WIDE USE OF SAID DRUG AS TO CURE MODERATE TO SEVERE
PAIN, IT IS FOUND TO HAVE SERIOUS SIDE EFFECT, REQUIRING ITS
ADMINISTRATION ONLY BY A TRAINED MEDICAL PRACTICIONER WITH
VALID S-2 LICENSE.
THE MAIN REASON FOR THE COURT TO ALLOW ONLY SHABU AND
MARIJUANA FOR CASES OF SEC 5 (SALE, TRADING ETC.) AND NOT TO ALL
OTHER DANGEROUS DRUGS LIES IN THE DIMINUTIVE QUANTITY OF THE
DANGEROUS DRUG INVOLVED. TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE VOLUME
AND PREVALENCE OF CASES INVOLVING SAID 2 DRUGS, AS WELL AS THE
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE OFFICERS OF THE PJA, THE COURT IS IN
VIEW THAT ILLEGAL SALE OF 0.01 TO 0.99 GRAMS OF SHABU IS VERY
LIGHT ENOUGH TO BE CONSIDERED AS NECESSARILY INCLUDED IN THE
OFFENSE OF VIOLATION OF SEC 12 OF 9165 SIMILAR WITH THE 1GRAM TO
9.99 GRAMS OF MARIJUANA WHILE ABOVE IT IS AMPLE ENOUGH TO
Section 24. Non-Applicability of the Probation
Law for Drug Traffickers and Pushers.
Any person convicted for drug trafficking or

pushing under this Act, regardless of the
penalty imposed, cannot avail of the privilege
by the Probation Law or PD 968, as amended.
Sec. 24 of RA 9165
• Applicable ONLY to drug trafficking or pushing.
• Hence, possession of drug paraphernalia

under Section 12 is probationable.
Michael Padua vs. People, GR No. 168546
July 23, 2008
Section 25. Qualifying Aggravating Circumstances in the
Commission of a Crime by an Offender Under the Influence of
Dangerous Drugs.
• Positive finding for the use of dangerous drugs

whether intentional or unintentional, habitual
or non-habitual.
• Penalty provided for in the RPC shall be

applicable.
Problem
Section 26. Attempt or Conspiracy.
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:
Unlawful Acts under Section 26.
(a) Importation of any dangerous drug and/or
controlled precursor and essential chemical;
(b) Sale, trading, administration, dispensation,
delivery, distribution and transportation of
any dangerous drug and/or controlled
precursor and essential chemical;
Unlawful Acts under Section 26.
(c) Maintenance of a den, dive or resort where
any dangerous drug is used in any form;
(d) Manufacture of any dangerous drug and/or
controlled precursor and essential chemical;
and
(e) Cultivation or culture of plants, which are
sources of dangerous drugs.
Elements of an Attempted Crime under
Section 26:
(1) Offender commences the commission of an

unlawful act mentioned in Sec 26. directly by
overt acts;
(2) He does not perform all the acts of
execution, which should produce the
offense;
(3) The non-performance of all acts of execution
was due to cause or accident other than his
spontaneous desistance.
First Element:
The offender commences the commission of an unlawful act
mentioned in Section 26 directly by over acts.
• Unlawful acts must be under Section 26.
• “A” gave P100 to “B” for three (3) sticks of

marijuana. “B” was about to deliver the drug
to “A”, when an undercover agent arrested
both of them.
Question:
Can “A” be charged with attempted possession

of dangerous drug?
Answer:
NO.
Reason
• Attempted possession of dangerous drug is
not mentioned in Section 26 as a punishable
act.
• Hence, attempt to possess dangerous drug is

not a crime.
Question:
Is attempted maintenance of a den, dive, or
resort where controlled precursor and essential
chemical is used punishable under Section 26?
Answer:
NO.
Reason:
The unlawful act under Section 26 (c) pertains to
maintenance of a den, dive, or resort where any
dangerous drug is used in any form.
Attempted Sale
People vs. Figueroa GR No. 186141, April 11,
2012
The seller showed shabu for sale to poseur-

buyer. Sale was aborted when the police officers
immediately placed the accused under arrest.
Allegation in the Information
• Accused who is charged with sale of
dangerous drug in the information can be
convicted of attempt to sell dangerous drug.
People vs. Boco, GR No. 129676, June 23, 1999

Allegation in the Information
• Accused who is charged with attempt to sell
dangerous drug in the information can be
convicted of sale of dangerous drug.
People vs. Asio, GR No. 84960, September 1,

1989.
Second Element:
The offender does not perform all the acts of execution, which should produce the
unlawful act.
• People vs. Burton, GR No. 114396, February 19,

1997. - attempted transportation of dangerous drug.
• People vs. Dimaano, GR No 174481, February 10,
2016. – attempted transportation of dangerous drug.
• People vs. Jones, GR No. 115581, August 29, 1997. –

consummated transportation of dangerous drugs.
Problem
Custom officers searched a vessel, which was
already within the contiguous zone of the
Philippines, and found and confiscated 50
boxes of dangerous drugs.
Problem
They also found documents that would show
that the boxes containing these drugs were for
importation to the Philippines.
The Government authorities charged the
importer of the dangerous drugs with crime of
attempted importation under Section 5 in
relation to Section 26 of RA 9165 in the RTC.
Question
Can the court take cognizance over the case
despite the fact that the crime was committed
outside the territorial waters of the
Philippines?
First view
• The court can take cognizance over the case.
• Under international law, drug trafficking is an

international crime.
• Under the Convention on the Law of the Sea, all

States shall co-operate in the suppression of illicit
traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances
engaged in by ships on the high seas contrary to
international conventions.
Second view
• The court cannot take cognizance over the
case.
• Crime committed outside the territory of the

Philippines is beyond the jurisdiction of the
local court.
Second view
• In People vs. Elkanish, GR No. L-2666, September 26,
1951.
– If the owner of the dangerous drugs parts with the

ownership or interest therein before it reaches Philippine
territory, he is neither an importer nor a possessor within
the legal meaning of the term, and he is not subject to
criminal prosecution of either illegal possession or illegal
importation under the Philippine laws.
1988 Convention against illicit traffic in Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances
• Each party thereto may take such measures as

may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction
over conspiracy or attempt to commit illegal
drug trafficking committed outside its territory
with a view to the commission, within its
territory, of such.
RA 9165
• Passed to implement the provision of 1988
convention.
• Did not establish extra-territorial jurisdiction
over conspiracy or attempt to commit drug
trafficking.
• Applicable rule is still the principle enunciated
in the case of Elkanish.
Third Element:
The non-performance of all acts of execution was due to cause or
accident other than his spontaneous desistance.
1. External Cause
2. Spontaneous desistance
Requisites of spontaneous desistance:

(a) Must be voluntary made.
(b) Must not be impelled by external factor.
The desistance must be voluntary made.
• The spontaneous desistance of a malefactor

exempts him from criminal liability for the
intended crime but it does not exempt him
from the crime committed by him before his
desistance.
Desistance must not be impelled by external
factor.
• The term spontaneous is not equivalent to

voluntary.
• Even if desistance is voluntary, the same could
not exempt the offender from liability for
attempted offense if there is an external
constraint.
Illustration
If the dangerous drug was not delivered since
sale was cancelled because the pusher
voluntary desisted to proceed with it having
detected an impending entrapment, the crime
committed is attempt to sell dangerous drug.
Punishable under Sec. 26 in relation to Sec. 5.

Conspiracy
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons
come to an agreement concerning the
commission of an offense and decide to
commit it.
Conspiracy to commit an unlawful act under

Secs. 4,5,6,8 or 16 is a crime since RA 9165
provides penalty for it.
Requisites to establish Conspiracy:
(1) Two or more persons came to an agreement;
(2) The agreement concerned the commission

of a crime;
(3) The execution of the offense was decided

upon.
Two levels of Conspiracy
1. Conspiracy as a crime
- when the law defines it as a crime with an imposable
penalty for it.
2. Conspiracy as a manner of incurring liability

- when conspiracy relates to a crime actually committed,
it is not a crime but only a manner of incurring liability,
that is, when there is conspiracy, the act of one is the act of
all.
Conspiracy as a crime distinguished from Conspiracy as a
manner of incurring criminal liability
• If the accused conspired to sell dangerous drug –

the crime should be designated as violation of Sec.
26 of RA 9165.
• If the accused conspired and committed the offense

of sale of dangerous drug – the crime should be
designated as violation of Sec. 5 of RA 9165, and not
violation of Sec. 26 in relation to Sec. 5 of RA 9165.
2 Kinds of Conspiracy
1. Express conspiracy
2. Implied conspiracy
2 kinds of Conspiracy
1. Express conspiracy – proven by direct
evidence.
Direct evidence may consist of the testimony

of a third person or interlocking confession.
2 kinds of Conspiracy
2. Implied conspiracy – proven by circumstantial
evidence.
Direct evidence showing conspiracy is not

required.
Conduct of the accused
• Conspiracy could be inferred from the acts of
the accused: his conduct before, during and
after the commission of the crime would show
its existence.
People vs. Enriquez, GR No. 99388, October

23, 1997. – In conspiracy, the act of one conspirator
could be held to be the act of the other.
Manner of commission
• Conspiracy does not have to be proved by
direct evidence but may be decided from the
mode and manner in which the offense was
committed.
People vs. Patog, GR No. L-69620, September

24, 1986 – conspiracy is established as there is
evidence of intentional participation in the
transaction with a view to the furtherance of the
common design and purpose.
Concerted effort
• Evidence need not establish the actual
agreement.
• It is enough that it is shown that their

concerted efforts were performed with
closeness and coordination indicating their
common purpose to sell prohibited drugs.
Decree of participation
People vs. Solon, GR No. 106639, May 31,
1995.
- conspiracy having been established, both Sali
and Solon are answerable as co-principals
regardless of the degree of their participation.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt
• Like physical acts constituting the crime itself,
the elements of conspiracy must be proven
beyond reasonable doubt.
• Presence
– People vs. Villaviray, GR No. 105084, September
18, 1996. – Held: presence at the scene of the
crime does not establish conspiracy.
• Companionship
– People vs. Bao-In, GR No. 128253, September 22,
1998. – conspiracy cannot be deduced solely from
an appellant’s presence in the locus criminis.
– Conspiracy transcends companionship, and must
be proved as clearly as the crime itself.
• Association
– People vs. Gomez, GR No. 101917, March 26, 1997
• Recovery of marked money
– People vs. Doria, GR No. 125299, January 22,
1999.
• No evidence
– People vs. Petilla II, GR No. 107948, April 12, 1994
Penalty
The penalty for attempt and conspiracy to
commit a violation thereof is to be punished
as consummated offense.
Section 27. Criminal liability of a Public Officer or
Employee for Misappropriation, Misapplication or
Failure to Account for the Confiscated, Seized and/or
Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of
Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and
Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia
and/or Laboratory Equipment Including the Proceeds
or Properties Obtained from the Unlawful Act
Committed.
Penalty for violation of Section 27
• Life imprisonment (to death).
• Fine ranging from P500,000 to P10,000,000.
• Absolute perpetual disqualification from any
public office.
• For elective local or national official:
-removal from office
-perpetual disqualification
Malversation or failure to render accounts
– Firearms or explosives seized from persons not

authorized to possess the same, which are in the
custody of peace officers, are public properties.
– Appropriation or misappropriation of public
properties is punishable under Articles 217 and
218 of the RPC, respectively.
Properties obtained from unlawful trafficking
acts
• Misappropriation or misapplication of public

properties or failure to render accounts is a
violation of Sec. 27 of RA 9165.
Benefiting for the proceeds of the crime
• Under the RPC, a person, who profited from the

effects of the crime, is liable as an accessory.
• Under RA 9165, elective local or national official, who

benefited from the proceeds of the trafficking of
dangerous drugs, is liable for violation of Sec. 27
thereof.
– They could also be held liable as protector or coddler if he
knowingly and wilfully consents to the unlawful acts under
RA 9165.
Section 28. Criminal Liability of Government
Officials and Employees.
The maximum penalties of the unlawful acts

provided for in this Act shall be imposed, in
addition to absolute perpetual disqualification
from any public office, if those found guilty of
such unlawful acts are government officials
and employees.
Section 28. Criminal Liability of Government
Officials and Employees.
• The circumstance that the offender is a public

officer is an aggravating in unlawful acts under
RA 9165.
• Not necessary that the public official abused
his position in committing a drug-related
crime.
• Additional penalty of absolute perpetual
disqualification.
Other aggravating circumstances under RA 9165
applicable to specific drug related crime
• Use of diplomatic passport applies only to

importation of dangerous drug.
• Under RA 7610, use procuring or offering of a
child for trafficking of dangerous drugs is a
worst form of child labor. If this circumstance
attended the commission of illegal sale,
transportation etc of dangerous drug under
RA 9165, penalty shall be imposed in its
maximum period.
Aggravating circumstance
• Must be alleged in the Information.
• Must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Section 29. Criminal Liability for Planting of
Evidence.
Any person who is found guilty of "planting"

any dangerous drug and/or controlled
precursor and essential chemical, regardless of
quantity and purity, shall suffer the penalty of
(death) life imprisonment.
Planting of evidence
Wilful act by any person of maliciously and
surreptitiously inserting, placing, adding or
attaching directly or indirectly, through any
overt or covert act, whatever quantity of any
dangerous drug in the person, house, effects,
or in the immediate vicinity of an innocent
individual for the purpose of implicating,
incriminating or imputing the commission of
any violation of this Act.
General Rule
Planting of evidence to incriminate an
innocent person constitutes the crime of
incriminating an innocent person under Art.
363 of the RPC.
If dangerous drug is planted as evidence
Crime committed:
Planting of evidence under RA 9165
If unauthorized explosives, loose firearm or
ammunition is planted as evidence
Crime committed:
Planting of evidence under PD No. 1866 as
amended by RA No. 9516 for explosive and RA
No. 10591 for loose firearm.
If a person is unlawfully arrested to plant
incriminatory evidence
Crime committed:
Complex crime of incriminating innocent person
through unlawful arrest.
If incriminatory evidence is planted to justify
an unlawful arrest
Crime committed:
Complex crime of unlawful arrest through
incriminating an innocent person.
If incriminatory evidence planted is
dangerous drugs
Crime committed:
Planting of evidence under Sec. 29 of
RA 9165
If incriminatory evidence planted is explosive
or loose firearm
Crime committed:
Planting of evidence under Sec. 38 of RA 10591
or Sec. 4-A of PD 1866 as amended by RA 9516.
What if buy-bust money was planted?
Crime committed:
Obstruction of justice under PD No. 1829
Defense of frame-up and extortion
Accused must formally charge the police
officers with the severely penalized offense of
planting of evidence. People vs. Bartolome, GR No.
191726, February 6, 2013.
Section 30. Criminal Liability of Officers of Partnerships,
Corporations, Associations or Other Juridical Entities
In case any violation of this Act is committed

by a partnership, corporation, association or
any juridical entity:
- the partner, president, director, manager,
trustee, estate administrator, or officer who
consents to or knowingly tolerates such
violation shall be held criminally liable as a co-
principal.
Penalty shall be imposed upon the :
- Partner - Trustee
- President - Estate administrator
- Director - Officer
- Manager
who knowingly authorizes, tolerates or consents to the use of

a vehicle, vessel, aircraft, equipment or other facility, as an
instrument in the importation, sale, trading, administration,
dispensation, delivery, distribution, transportation or
manufacture of dangerous drugs, or chemical diversion
if such vehicle, vessel, aircraft, equipment or
other instrument is owned by or under the
control or supervision of the partnership,
corporation, association or juridical entity to
which they are affiliated.
Officers or employees who are not mentioned
in Sec. 30 can still be held liable if they actively
and consciously participated in the
commission of corporate acts, which
constitute the crime.
Section 31. Additional Penalty if Offender is
an Alien
Any alien who violates such provisions of this

Act shall, after service of sentence, be
deported immediately without further
proceedings, unless the penalty is death.
Section 32. Liability to a Person Violating Any
Regulation Issued by the Board
• In addition to the administrative sanctions
imposed by the Board.
• Penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6)
months and one (1) day to four (4) years
• Fine ranging from Ten thousand pesos
(P10,000.00) to Fifty thousand pesos
(P50,000.00).
Section 33. Immunity from Prosecution and
Punishment
Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 17,

Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure and the provisions of Republic Act
No. 6981 or the Witness Protection, Security
and Benefit Act of 1991,
Persons exempt from prosecution
• He has violated Sections 7, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 19,
Article II of this Act.
• He voluntarily gives information about any violation
of Sections 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 13, and 16, Article II of this
Act as well as any violation of the offenses
mentioned if committed by a drug syndicate, or any
information leading to the whereabouts, identities
and arrest of all or any of the members thereof
• He must willingly testify against such persons
described above
Conditions for the exemption
(1) The information and testimony are

necessary for the conviction of the persons
described above;
(2) Such information and testimony are not yet
in the possession of the State;
(3) Such information and testimony can be
corroborated on its material points;
Conditions for the exemption
(4) The informant or witness has not been previously
convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude
except when there is no other direct evidence
available for the State other than the information
and testimony of said informant of witness.
(5) Informant or witness shall strictly and faithfully
comply without delay, any condition or
undertaking, reduced into writing, lawfully
imposed by the State as further consideration for
the grant of immunity from prosecution and
punishment.
Persons exempt from prosecution
• He must not be the most guilty for the
offense.
• There must no direct evidence available for
the State except for the information and
testimony of the said informant or witness.
People vs. Ampatuan, GR. No. 188707, July
30, 2014.
• An allegation that Dujon is engaged in illegal
sale is not a disqualification from immunity
since such is not equivalent to a previous
“conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude.
• Dujon, having all the qualifications and none
of the disqualifications under the law, is
eligible for immunity from prosecution.
People vs. Ramos, Jr., GR No. 88301, October
28, 1991.
• The fact that the government witnesses made

the purchase of marijuana does not make
them accomplices, for their only purpose is to
secure evidence to convict the violator.
Section 34. Termination of the Grant of
Immunity
Immunity shall not attach should it turn out
subsequently that the information and/or
testimony is false, malicious or made only for
the purpose of harassing, molesting or in any
way prejudicing the persons described in the
preceding Section against whom such
information or testimony is directed against.
Consequence
• The informant or witness shall be subject to
prosecution
• The enjoyment of all rights and benefits
previously accorded him under this Act or any
other law, decree or order shall be deemed
terminated.
Consequence of failure or refusal to testify
without just cause
• His/her immunity shall be removed;
• He/she shall likewise be subject to contempt
and/or criminal prosecution, as the case may
be;
• The enjoyment of all rights and benefits
previously accorded him under this Act or in
any other law, decree or order shall be
deemed terminated.
Section 34. Continuation
In case the informant or witness referred to
under this Act falls under the applicability of
this Section hereof, such individual cannot
avail of the provisions under Article VIII on
Program for Treatment and Rehabilitation of
Drug Dependents.
Section 35. Accessory Penalties
A person convicted under this Act shall be
disqualified to exercise his/her civil rights such as but
not limited to:
• The rights of parental authority or guardianship,

either as to the person or property of any ward;
• The rights to dispose of such property by any act or
any conveyance inter vivos; and
• Political rights such as but not limited to, the right to
vote and be voted for. Such rights shall also be
suspended during the pendency of an appeal from
such conviction.
Life imprisonment prescribed under special
law has no accessory penalties.
But life imprisonment or any other penalty

prescribed by RA No. 9165 has accessory
penalties under Section 35 thereof.
ARTICLE XI
JURISDICTION OVER DRUG CASES
Section 90. JURISDICTION-
The Supreme Court Shall designate special courts from among the existing
Regional Trial Courts in each judicial region to exclusively try and hear cases
involving violations of this Act. The number of courts designated in each judicial
region shall be based on the population and the number of cases pending in their
respective jurisdiction.
And shall designate special prosecutors to exclusively handle cases involving

violations of this Act.
Trial of the case under this Section shall be finished by the court not later than
60 days from the date of the filing of the information. Decision on said cases shall
be rendered within a period of 15 days from the date of submission of the case for
resolution.
IN THE CASE OF SEN. LEILA DE LIMA VS HON. JUDGE
JUANITA GUERRERO, et.al.
-G.R. No. 229781, October 10, 2017
The Supreme Court in a landmark ruling held:
“Regional Trial Courts have exclusive original jurisdiction

over violations of RA 9165”
Acting on the petition filed by the senator seeking to dismiss

the charge against her for lack of Jurisdiction, the SC
dismissed the petition for lack of merit and ordered the RTC
of Muntinlupa City to proceed with dispatch with Criminal
Case N6 17-165.
Section 91. RESPONSIBILITY AND LIABILITY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
AND OTHER GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES IN TESTIFYING AS
PROSECUTION WITNESSES IN DANGEROUS DRUG CASES.
Any member of law enforcement agencies or any other government official and employee who,
after due notice, fails or refuses intentionally or negligently, to appear as a witness for the prosecution in
any proceedings, involving violations of this Act, without any valid reason, shall be punished with
imprisonment of 12 years and 1 day to 20 years and fine of not less than 500,000 pesos, in addition to
the administrative liability he/she may be meted out by his/her immediate superior and/or appropriate
body.
The immediate superior shall be penalized with imprisonment of not less than 2 months and 1 day
but not more than 6 years and a fine of not less than 10,000 pesos but not more than 50,000 pesos, in
addition, perpetual absolute disqualification from public office if despite due notice to them and the
witnesses concerned, does not exert reasonable effort to present the latter to the court.
The member of the law enforcement agency and employees mentioned shall not be transferred or
re-assigned to any other government office located in another territorial jurisdiction during the pendency
of the case. However, they me be transferred or re-assigned for compelling reasons. Provided, the
immediate superior shall notify the court where the case is pending of the order to transfer or re-assign,
within 24 hours. And also…
Prosecution and punishment under this Section shall be without prejudice to any liability for violation of
any existing law.
Section 92- DELAY AND BUNGLING IN THE
PROSECUTION OF DRUG CASES
Any government officer or employee tasked with the
prosecution of drug-related cases under this act, who through
patent laxity, inexcusable neglect, unreasonable delay or
deliberately causes the unsuccessful prosecution and/or
dismissal of the said drug cases, shall suffer the penalty of
imprisonment ranging from 12 years and 1 day to 20 years
without prejudice with his/her prosecution under the
pertinent provisions of the RPC.
Section 93- RECLASSIFICATION, ADDITION OR REMOVAL OF ANY
DRUG FROM - THE LIST OF DANGEROUS DRUGS
The Board shall have the power to reclassify, add to

or remove from the list of dangerous drugs.
Proceeding to reclassify, add, or remove a drug or
other substance may be initiated by the PDEA, the
DOH, or by petition from any interested party,
including the manufacturer of a drug, a medical
society or association, a pharmacy association, a
public interest group concerned with drug abuse, a
national or local government agency, or an individual
citizen.
The Board shall immediately begin the investigation upon receipt of a petition and
the PDEA also may begin investigation at anytime based upon the information received
from the law enforcement laboratories, national and local law enforcement and
regulatory agencies, or other sources of information.
The Board after notice and hearing shall consider the following factors:
1. its actual or relative potential for abuse
2. scientific evidence of its pharmacological effect if known
3. the state of current scientific knowledge regarding the drug or other substance
4. its history and current pattern of abuse
5. the scope, duration, and significance of abuse
6. risk to public health; and
7. whether the substance is an immediate precursor of a substance already
controlled under this Act.
The Dangerous Drug Board shall give notice to the general public of the public
hearing of the reclassification, addition or removal from the list by publishing such notice
in any newspaper of general circulation once a week for 2 weeks.
The Board shall also take into accord the obligation and commitments to
international treaties, conventions and agreements to which the Philippines is a signatory.
THE EFFECT OF SUCH RECLASSIFICATION, ADDITION OR
REMOVAL SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS:
a) In case a dangerous drug is reclassified as precursors and essential

chemicals, the penalties for the violations of this Act involving the
2 latter categories of drugs shall, In case of conviction, be
imposed in all pending criminal prosecutions.
b) In case a precursors and essential and essential chemicals is

reclassified as dangerous drug, the penalties for violations of this
Act involving precursors and essential chemicals shall, in case of
conviction, be imposed in all pending criminal prosecutions.
c) In case of the addition of a new drug to the list of dangerous drugs

and precursors and essential chemicals, no criminal liability
involving the same under this Act shall arise until the lapse of 15
days from the last publication of such notice.
THE EFFECT OF SUCH RECLASSIFICATION, ADDITION OR
REMOVAL SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS:
d) In case of removal of a drug from the list of dangerous drugs and

precursors and essential chemicals, all persons convicted and/or
detained for the use and/or possession of such a drug shall be
automatically released and all pending criminal prosecution
involving such a drug under this Act shall forthwith be dismissed.
e) The Board shall, within 5 days from the date of its promulgation
submit to Congress a detailed reclassification, addition, or removal
of any drug from the list of dangerous drugs.

Republic Act No. 9165 June 7, 2002

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Republic Act No. 9165 June 7, 2002

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic Act No. 9165 June 7, 2002

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REPUBLIC ACT NO.

AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS

DAQUIZ, RALPH RANDEL

• Presidential Decree No. 44 was promulgated, amending RA 6425,

• Department of Health, Department of Social Service and

• Presidential Proclamation No. 1192 declaring every second week

• National Drug Law Enforcement and Prevention Coordinating Center

• 2002 – the promulgation of Republic Act 9165 or “Comprehensive

2. Controlled precursors and essential chemical

2. Any person who organizes, manages, or acts as a

2. That this activity is not authorized by law

3. That offender knows that what he is dealing with

2. That the ship enters the Philippine waters with

2. Controlled precursors and essential chemical

2. Use minors or mentally incapacitated individuals as runners, couriers

3. Victim of the offense is a minor or a mentally incapacitated

4. Any person who organizes, manages or acts as a "financier”.

2. That this activity is not authorized by law

3. That offender knows that what he is dealing with is

2. That the accused intended to transport it.

Convicted of Transportation Convicted of Possession

2. Offender delivers the dangerous drug to the buyer.

2. The corpus delicit or the illicit drug was

3. That the buyer and seller were identified

• Disposition of dangerous drugs with consideration is

2. Controlled Precursor and Essential Chemical

2. Should any dangerous drug be the proximate cause of

3. Any person who organizes, manages, or acts as a

2. That the prosecution proves such intent on the part of

3. That the owner is included as an accused in the

They are the caretaker, helper, watchman, lookout,

2. Controlled precursors and essential chemical

2. Any phase or manufacturing process was established

3. Any clandestine laboratory was secured or protected

5. Any employment of a practitioner, chemical

6. Any person who organizes, manages, or acts as a

Planting is just a part of the manufacturing

2. With the crime of manufacture of dangerous drug

• Element of the crime of chemical diversion:

2. The controlled precursors and essential

• Element of the crime of chemical diversion:

2. The controlled precursors and essential chemicals were

 Proof that the manufacturer actually used there

2. That the offender knows or under circumstances

A. It will be used to plant, propagate , cultivate, grow, harvest,

 12 years and 1 day to 20 years and fine of P100,000 to P500,000

B. It will be used to inject, ingest, inhale or otherwise

 6 months to 4 years and fine of P10,000 to P50,000

• Possession of dangerous drugs in the following

• Possession of dangerous drugs in the following

• Possession of dangerous drugs in the following

• Possession of dangerous drugs in the following

• Possession, under the law, includes not only

• Elements of illegal possession of dangerous

• To make a person liable for illegal possession

UNLAWUL ACTS ELEMENTS PENALTY

It was clear that it was only Ranada who was caught