UPDATES IN SPECIAL PENAL LAWS “Evident bad faith” contemplates a state of mind

affirmatively operating with furtive design or with

some motive of self-interest or ill will or for
by ulterior purposes. “Gross inexcusable
negligence” refers to negligence characterized
DEAN GEMY LITO L. FESTIN by the want of even the slightest care, acting or
PUP College of Law omitting to act in a situation where there is a
duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and
intentionally, with conscious indifference to
(excerpts from the book “Bar Review Guide consequences insofar as other persons may be
to Criminal Law: An insight to the Bar affected. (Jovito C. Plameras vs. People of
Exams” published by Central Book the Philippines, G.R. No. 187268, September
Supply, Inc.) 4,2013, Perez, J.)
------------------------------------------------------
4. When can private persons be charged.

A. THE ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT However, private persons may likewise

be charged with violation of Section 3(g) of RA
PRACTICES ACT 3019 if they conspired with the public officer.
[BAR Q. ‘85, ‘88, ‘90, ‘91, ‘97, ‘99, ‘00, (Gregorio Sing Ian, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan
‘03, ‘09, ‘10, ‘11, ’12, ‘14] (3rd division),The People of the Philippines,
G.R. Nos.195011-19, September 30, 2013,Del
Castillo, J.)
1. Private person may be liable.
5. Contract and transaction explained.
It bears to reiterate the settled rule that
private persons, when acting in conspiracy with A transaction, like a contract, is one
public officers, may be indicted and, if found which involves some consideration as in credit
guilty, held liable for the pertinent offenses under transactions and this element (consideration) is
Section 3 (e) of R.A. 3019, in consonance with absent in the investigation conducted by the
the avowed policy of the anti-graft law to repress petitioner. In the light of the foregoing, the Court
certain acts of public officers and private agrees with the petitioner that it was error for the
persons alike constituting graft or corrupt Sandiganbayan to have convicted him of
practices act or which may lead thereto. This is violating Sec. 3 (b) of R.A. No. 3019. (People
the controlling doctrine as enunciated by the vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 188165/G.R. No.
Court in previous cases.(Edelbert C. Uyboco 189063 December 11, 2013,Bersamin, J.)
vs. People, G.R. No. 211703, December 10,
2014, Velasco Jr., J.) Notably, the offense defined under Section 3
(e) of R.A. No. 3019 may be committed even
2. Good faith of heads of offices in signing a if bad faith is not attendant.
document.
Thus, even assuming for the sake of
The good faith of heads of offices in argument that Coloma did not act in bad faith in
signing a document will only be appreciated if rendering his report, his negligence under the
they, with trust and confidence, have relied on circumstances was not only gross but also
their subordinates in whom the duty is primarily inexcusable. (Coloma vs. Sandiganbayan,
lodged. (Sanchez vs. People ,703 SCRA 586, G.R. No. 205561, September 24,
G.R. No. 187340, August 14, 2013,Sereno, 2014,Mendoza, J.)
CJ.)

3. Manifest partiality, Evident bad faith and B. THE COMPREHENSIVE

Gross inexcusable negligence DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002
explained.
[BAR Q. ‘92, ‘96, ‘98, ‘00, ‘02, ‘04, ‘05,
In Uriarte vs. People, the Court ‘06, ‘07, ‘09, ’10, ‘14]
explained that Section 3(e) of RA 3019 may be
committed either by dolo, as when the accused
acted with evident bad faith or manifest 1. The identity of the prohibited drug must be
partiality, or by culpa, as when the accused established.
committed gross inexcusable negligence. There
is “manifest partiality” when there is clear, Proof of the chain of custody from the
notorious, or plain inclination or predilection to time of seizure to the time such evidence is
favor one side or person rather than another. presented in court ensures the absence of doubt
th
Address: Unit 2, 4 Floor, España Place Building, 1139 Adelina Street corner España Boulevard 1
Sampaloc, Manila (Beside UST near Morayta Street)
* www.villasislawcenter.com / www.facebook.com/villasislawcenter / www.remediallawdoctrines.blogspot.com /
[email protected] / [email protected]
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
concerning the integrity of such vital custody” rule requires that the “marking” of the
evidence. This requires as a minimum that the seized items — to truly ensure that they are the
police mark the seized item (1) in the presence same items that enter the chain and are
of the apprehended violator and (2) immediately eventually the ones offered in evidence —
upon confiscation. (People vs. Palomares, G.R. should be done (1) in the presence of the
No. 200915, February 12, 2014) apprehended violator (2) immediately upon
confiscation. (People vs. Somoza, 701 SCRA
525, G.R. No. 197250, July 17, 2013,
2. Essential elements of illegal sale. Leonardo-De Castro, J.)

In this case, the prosecution failed to

prove that each and every element that
constitutes an illegal sale of dangerous drug was 4. Chain of custody and objective test.
present to convict the accused. Upon evaluation
of the testimonies of PO1 Familara and PO1 To establish the chain of custody in a
Mendoza, it is apparent that there is an buy-bust operation, the prosecution must
inconsistency on the identity and number of establish the following links, namely: First, the
plastic sachets bought from the accused. In his seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal
statement, PO1 Familara recalled that upon drug recovered from the accused by the
arrival at the place of arrest, PO1 Mendoza told apprehending officer; Second, the turnover of
him that he was able to buy one plastic sachet of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending
shabu from Guinto. On the other hand, PO1 officer to the investigating officer; Third, the
Mendoza recalled that he was able to buy two turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal
plastic sachets instead of one. The pointed drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory
inconsistency is not a minor one that can be examination; and Fourth, the turnover and
brushed aside as the discrepancy taints the very submission of the marked illegal drug seized by
corpus delicti of the crime of illegal sale. A vital the forensic chemist to the court.
point of contention, the prosecution’s evidence
places in reasonable doubt the identification of The “objective test” is the duty of the
the dangerous drug that was presented in court. prosecution to present a complete picture
(People vs. Guinto, G.R. No. 198314, detailing the buy-bust operation — from the
September 24, 2014, Perez, J.) initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the
pusher, the offer to purchase, the promise or
In order to overcome the presumption of payment of the consideration, until the
regularity, there must be clear and convincing consummation of the sale by the delivery of the
evidence that the police officers did not properly illegal subject of sale. (People vs. Clara, 702
perform their duties or that they were prompted SCRA 273, G.R. No. 195528, July 24, 2013,
with ill motive, none of which exists in this case. Perez, J.)
(People of the Philippines vs. Mercidita
Resurreccion y Torres, G.R. No. 188310 June 5. Effect of Gaps or Lapses in the Chain of
13, 2013, Leonardo-De Castro, J.) Custody of Illegal Drugs.

The Court has held that prior The discussion in People v. Lim is
surveillance is not necessary to render a buy- apropos: x xx [A]ny apprehending team having
bust operation legitimate, especially when the initial custody and control of said drugs and/or
buy-bust team is accompanied at the target area paraphernalia, should immediately after seizure
by the informant. Similarly, the presentation of and confiscation, have the same physically
an informant as a witness is not regarded as inventoried and photographed in the presence of
indispensable to the success in prosecuting the accused, if there be any, and or his
drug-related cases. In this case, the informant representative, who shall be required to sign the
had actively participated in the buy-bust copies of the inventory and be given a copy
operation and her testimony, if presented, would thereof. The failure of the agents to comply
merely corroborate the testimonies of the with such a requirement raises a doubt
members of the buy-bust team. (People vs. whether what was submitted for laboratory
Monceda, G.R. No. 176269, November 13, examination and presented in court was
2013, Brion, J.) actually recovered from the appellants. It
negates the presumption that official duties
3. What is “Marking”? have been regularly performed by the PAOC-
TF agents. (People vs. Balibay, G.R. No.
“Marking” is the placing by the 202701, September 10, 2014 ,Perez, J.)
apprehending officer of some distinguishing
signs with his/her initials and signature on the First, it is not clear from the evidence
items seized. Consistency with the “chain of that the marking, which was done in the police
th
Address: Unit 2, 4 Floor, España Place Building, 1139 Adelina Street corner España Boulevard 2
Sampaloc, Manila (Beside UST near Morayta Street)
* www.villasislawcenter.com / www.facebook.com/villasislawcenter / www.remediallawdoctrines.blogspot.com /
[email protected] / [email protected]
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
station, was made in the presence of the on. Moreover, no one testified as to how the
accused or his representative. Although the confiscated items were handled and cared for
Court has previously ruled that the marking after the laboratory examination. (People of the
upon “immediate” confiscation of the prohibited Philippines vs. Arturo Enriquez De los
items contemplates even that which was done at Reyes, G.R. No. 197550, September 25,2013,
the nearest police station or office of the Leonardo-De Castro, J.)
apprehending team, the same must always be
done in the presence of the accused or his In the case at bar, instead of
representative. immediately marking the subject drug upon its
confiscation, PO2 Tuzon marked it with his
Second, the prosecution failed to duly initials “EAT” only upon arrival at the police
accomplish the Certificate of Inventory and to station. While the failure of arresting officers to
take photos of the seized items pursuant to the mark the seized items at the place of arrest does
above-stated provision. not, by itself, impair the integrity of the chain of
custody and render the confiscated items
Third, the Court finds conflicting inadmissible in evidence, such circumstance,
testimony and glaring inconsistencies that would when taken in light of the several other lapses in
cast doubt on the integrity of the handling of the the chain of custody that attend the present
seized drugs. (People of the Philippines vs. case, forms part of a gross, systematic, or
Freddy Salonga y Afiado, G. R. No. 194948, deliberate disregard of the safeguards that are
September 2, 2013, Sereno, CJ.) drawn by the law, sufficient to create reasonable
doubt as to the culpability of the accused.
The following are the links that must be
established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust 6. Failure to immediately mark the seized
situation: First, the seizure and marking, if drugs.
practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from
the accused by the apprehending officer; To be able to create a first link in the
Second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized chain of custody, then, what is required is that
by the apprehending officer to the investigating the marking be made in the presence of the
officer; Third, the turnover by the investigating accused and upon immediate confiscation.
officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist “Immediate confiscation” has no exact definition.
for laboratory examination; and Fourth, the Thus, in People v. Gum-Oyen, testimony that
turnover and submission of the marked illegal included the marking of the seized items at the
drug seized from the forensic chemist to the police station and in the presence of the
court. accused was sufficient in showing compliance
with the rules on chain of custody. Marking upon
The first crucial link in the chain of immediate confiscation contemplates even
custody starts with the seizure from Enriquez of marking at the nearest police station or office of
the dangerous drugs and its subsequent the apprehending team. (People of the
marking. Nowhere in the documentary and Philippines vs. Giovanni Ocfemia y Chavez,
testimonial evidence of the prosecution can it be G.R. No. 185383, September 25, 2013 ,
found when these items were actually marked Leonardo-De Castro.)
and if they were marked in the presence of
Enriquez or at least his representative. 7. Crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs
necessarily includes the crime of illegal
The second link in the chain of custody possession.
is the turnover of the illegal drug by the
apprehending officer to the investigating officer. Well-settled in jurisprudence that the
However, they both failed to identify the person crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs
to whom they turned over the seized items. necessarily includes the crime of illegal
There is no evidence to show that he was the possession of dangerous drugs.
person who received the seized items from the
apprehending officers. The Court had further clarified, in
relation to the requirement of marking the drugs
As for the third and the last links, “immediately after seizure and confiscation,” that
although records show that Chief of Police the marking may be undertaken at the police
Erese signed the request for laboratory station rather than at the place of arrest for as
examination, he was not presented in court to long as it is done in the presence of the accused
testify as such. The testimony of Chief of Police and that what is of utmost importance is the
Erese is indispensable because he could have preservation of its integrity and evidentiary
provided the critical link between the testimony value. (People of the Philippines vs. Michael
of SPO2 David, and the tenor of the testimony of Maongco y Yumonda, G.R. No. 196966,
P/Insp. Dizon, which the parties have stipulated October 23,2013, Leonardo-De Castro, J.)
th
Address: Unit 2, 4 Floor, España Place Building, 1139 Adelina Street corner España Boulevard 3
Sampaloc, Manila (Beside UST near Morayta Street)
* www.villasislawcenter.com / www.facebook.com/villasislawcenter / www.remediallawdoctrines.blogspot.com /
[email protected] / [email protected]
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
 11. Failure to present the buy-bust money
8. Failure to make an inventory and to take not fatal.
photographs of the subject drug.
Failure to present the buy-bust money is
Contrary to the argument of the not fatal to the prosecution’s cause. It is not
defense, even the buy-bust team’s failure to indispensable in drug cases since it is merely
make an inventory and to take photographs of corroborative evidence, and the absence thereof
the subject drug did not adversely affect the does not create a hiatus in the evidence for the
prosecution’s case. What is essential is that the prosecution provided the sale of dangerous
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs is adequately proven and the drug subject
items which would be utilized in the of the transaction is presented before the court.
determination of the guilt or innocence of the (People vs. Bayan, G.R. No. 200987, August
accused are preserved. (People vs. Loks, G.R. 20, 2014, Perez, J.)
No. 203433, November 27, 2013, Reyes, J.)
12. Actual and constructive possession
A proviso was added in the distinguished.
implementing rules that “noncompliance with
these requirements under justifiable grounds, as Exclusive possession or control is not
long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of necessary. The accused cannot avoid
the seized items are properly preserved by the conviction if his right to exercise control and
apprehending officer/team, shall not render void dominion over the place where the contraband is
and invalid such seizures of and custody over located, is shared with another. (People vs. De
said items.” Pertinently, it is the preservation of La Trinidad,G.R. No. 199898, September 03,
the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized 2014,Perez, J.)
items which must be proven to establish the
corpus delicti. (People vs. Cerdon, G.R. No. 13. Effect of failure to offer in evidence the
201111, August 6, 2014, Perez, J.) Certificate of Inventory and the formal
request for examination of the confiscated
Coordination with the PDEA is not an substance.
indispensable element of a proper buy-bust
operation. A buy-bust operation is not It is true that the prosecution did not
invalidated by mere non-coordination with the formally offer in evidence the Certificate of
PDEA. (People vs. Montevirgen, G.R. No. Inventory and the formal request for examination
189840 December 11, 2013, Del Castillo, J. ) of the confiscated substance. Be that as it may,
the Court has previously held that even if an
9. What does marking upon immediate exhibit is not formally offered, the same “may
confiscation mean? still be admitted against the adverse party if,
first, it has been duly identified by testimony duly
It begins with the marking of the seized recorded and, second, it has itself been
objects to fix its identity; Marking upon incorporated in the records of the case.” PO3
“immediate” confiscation can reasonably cover Velasquez categorically testified that an
marking done at the nearest police station or inventory of the seized drugs was performed, a
office of the apprehending team, especially corresponding certificate was prepared, and a
when the place of seizure is volatile and could formal request for examination was made. He
draw unpredictable reactions from its further narrated that together with the formal
surroundings. (People vs. Bautista, G.R. No. request, he submitted and delivered the
198113 December 11, 2013, Abad, J.) confiscated drugs to the crime laboratory. On
the basis of the said formal request, P/Insp.
10. Testimony of poseur-buyer not Roderos examined the specimen and she
indispensable. likewise testified on this. Appellant’s counsel
even asked the said prosecution witnesses
The testimony of the poseur-buyer was regarding these documents. Considering the
not therefore indispensable or necessary; it said testimonies and the fact that the documents
would have been cumulative merely, or were incorporated in the records of the case,
corroborative at best." His testimony can they are therefore admissible against appellant.
therefore be dispensed with since the illicit (People vs. Baturi, G.R. No. 189812,
transaction was actually witnessed and September 01, 2014, Del Castillo, J.)
adequately proved by the prosecution
witnesses. (People vs. Marcelo, G.R. No. 14. Presentation of confidential informant.
181541, August 18, 2014, Del Castillo, J.)
The non-presentation of the confidential
informant as a witness does not ordinarily
th
Address: Unit 2, 4 Floor, España Place Building, 1139 Adelina Street corner España Boulevard 4
Sampaloc, Manila (Beside UST near Morayta Street)
* www.villasislawcenter.com / www.facebook.com/villasislawcenter / www.remediallawdoctrines.blogspot.com /
[email protected] / [email protected]
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
weaken the State's case against the accused. 18. With reference to the importation and
However, if the arresting lawmen arrested the possession of blasting caps, it seems plain
accused based on the pre-arranged signal from beyond argument that the latter is inherent in
the confidential informant who acted as the the former so as to make them juridically
poseur buyer, his non-presentation must be identical. There can hardly be importation
credibly explained and the transaction without possession. When one brings
established by other ways in order to satisfy the something or causes something to be
quantum of proof beyond reasonable doubt brought into the country, he necessarily has
because the arresting lawmen did not the possession of it. The possession
themselves participate in the buy-bust ensuing from the importation may not be
transaction with the accused. actual, but legal, or constructive, but
whatever its character, the importer, in our
In People vs. Lopez (214 SCRA 323), it opinion, is a possessor in the juristic sense
was held that there was no need for the and he is liable to criminal prosecution.
prosecution to present the confidential informer
as the poseur-buyer himself positively identified Applying the aforequoted ruling, this
the accused as the one who sold to him one Court finds that while appellants cannot be held
deck of methamphetamine hydrochloride or liable for the offense of illegal importation
"shabu." The trial court then properly relied on charged in the information, their criminal liability
the testimonies of the police officers despite the for illegal possession, if proven beyond
decision of the prosecution not to present the reasonable doubt, may nevertheless be
informer. (People vs. Andaya, G.R. No. sustained. As previously mentioned, the crime
183700, October 13, 2014, Bersamin, J.) of importation of regulated drugs is committed
by importing or bringing any regulated drug into
15. Buy-bust operation defined. the Philippines without being authorized by
law. Indeed, when one brings something or
A buy-bust operation is "a form of causes something to be brought into the
entrapment, in which the violator is caught in country, he necessarily has possession of the
flagrante delicto and the police officers same. Necessarily, therefore, importation can
conducting the operation are not only authorized never be proven without first establishing
but duty-bound to apprehend the violator and to possession, affirming the fact that possession is
search him for anything that may have been part a condition sine qua non for it would rather be
of or used in the commission of the unjust to convict one of illegal importation of
crime." (People vs. Adriano, G.R. No. 208169, regulated drugs when he is not proven to be in
October 08, 2014, Perez, J.) possession thereof.

16. When seized item is “fruit of the At this point, this Court notes that
poisonous tree”. charging appellants with illegal possession when
the information filed against them charges the
Records have established that both the crime of importation does not violate their
arrest and the search were made without a constitutional right to be informed of the nature
warrant. While the accused has already waived and cause of the accusation brought against
his right to contest the legality of his arrest, he is them. The rule is that when there is a variance
not deemed to have equally waived his right to between the offense charged in the complaint or
contest the legality of the search. (Danilo information, and that proved or established by
Villanueva y Alcaraz vs. People, G.R. No. the evidence, and the offense as charged
199042, November 17, 2014, Sereno, CJ. ) necessarily includes the offense proved, the
accused shall be convicted of the offense
17. Plain view doctrine and its requisites. proved included in that which is charged. An
offense charged necessarily includes that which
The plain view doctrine applies when is proved, when some of the essential elements
the following requisites concur: (1) the law or ingredients of the former, as this is alleged in
enforcement officer in search of the evidence the complaint or information, constitute the
has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a latter.
position from which he can view a particular
area; (2) the discovery of the evidence in a plain Indeed, the Court has had several
view is inadvertent; and (3) it is immediately occasions in the past wherein an accused,
apparent to the officer that the item he observes charged with the illegal sale of dangerous drugs,
may be evidence of a crime, contraband or was convicted of illegal possession thereof. In
otherwise subject to seizure. (Rizaldy Sanchez those cases, this Court upheld the prevailing
y Cajili vs. People, G.R. No. 204589, doctrine that the illegal sale of dangerous drugs
November 19, 2014, Mendoza, J.) absorbs the illegal possession thereof except if
the seller was also apprehended in the illegal
th
Address: Unit 2, 4 Floor, España Place Building, 1139 Adelina Street corner España Boulevard 5
Sampaloc, Manila (Beside UST near Morayta Street)
* www.villasislawcenter.com / www.facebook.com/villasislawcenter / www.remediallawdoctrines.blogspot.com /
[email protected] / [email protected]
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
possession of another quantity of dangerous Regulations of R. A. No. 9165 on the handling
drugs not covered by or not included in the and disposition of seized dangerous drugs
illegal sale, and the other quantity of dangerous states: x x x Provided, further, that non-
drugs was probably intended for some future compliance with these requirements under
dealings or use by the accused. Illegal justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and
possession of dangerous drugs is therefore an evidentiary value of the seized items are
element of and is necessarily included in illegal properly preserved by the apprehending
sale. Hence, convicting the accused with the officer/team, shall not render void and invalid
former does not violate his right to be informed such seizures of and custody over said items.
of the accusation against him for it is an element (People vs. Rosauro, G.R. No. 209588,
of the latter. February 18, 2015, Perez, J.)

In a similar manner, considering that 20. What does “deliver” mean?

illegal possession is likewise an element of and
is necessarily included in illegal importation of Under Article I, Section 3(k) of the same
dangerous drugs, convicting appellants of the statute, the term “deliver” means “any act of
former, if duly established beyond reasonable knowingly passing a dangerous drug to another,
doubt, does not amount to a violation of their personally or otherwise, and by any means, with
right to be informed of the nature and cause of or without consideration.” On the other hand,
accusation against them. Indeed, where an “sell” as defined in Section 3(ii) refers to “any act
accused is charged with a specific crime, he is of giving away any dangerous drug and/or
duly informed not only of such specific crime but controlled precursor and essential chemical
also of lesser crimes or offenses included whether for money or any other consideration.”
therein.
To establish the guilt of an accused for
The elements of illegal possession of the illegal delivery of a dangerous drug, there
regulated drugs are as follows: (a) the accused must be evidence that “(1) the accused passed
is in possession of an item or object which is on possession of a dangerous drug to another,
identified to be a regulated drug; (b) such personally or otherwise, and by any means; (2)
possession is not authorized by law; and (c) the such delivery” is not authorized by law; and (3)
accused freely and consciously possessed the the accused knowingly made the delivery with or
regulated drug. The evidence on record clearly without consideration.
established that appellants were in possession
of the bags containing the regulated drugs The presentation of the marked money
without the requisite authority. As mentioned is immaterial in this case since the crime of
previously, on the date of appellants’ arrest, the illegal delivery of a dangerous drug can be
apprehending officers were conducting a committed even without consideration or
surveillance of the coast of Ambil Island in the payment. (People vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 194606,
Municipality of Looc, Occidental Mindoro, upon February 18, 2015, Del Castillo, J.)
being informed by the Municipality’s Barangay
Captain that a suspicious-looking boat was 21. Chain of Custody.
within the vicinity. Not long after, they spotted
two (2) boats anchored side by side, the persons In the prosecution of illegal possession
on which were transferring cargo from one to the of dangerous drugs, the dangerous drug itself
other. Interestingly, as they moved closer to the constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense
area, one of the boats hurriedly sped away. and, in sustaining a conviction therefor, the
Upon reaching the other boat, the police officers identity and integrity of the corpus delicti must
found the appellants with several transparent definitely be shown to have been preserved.
plastic bags containing what appeared to be (Valencia vs. People, G.R. No. 198804,
shabu which were plainly exposed to the view of January 22, 2014, Reyes, J.)
the officers. Clearly, appellants were found to be
in possession of the subject regulated drugs. In both cases of illegal sale and illegal
(People vs. Chi Chan Liu and Hui Lao Chung, possession of dangerous drugs, the prosecution
G.R. No. 189272, January 21, 2015, Peralta, must show the chain of custody over the
J.) dangerous drug in order to establish the corpus
delicti, which is the dangerous drug itself. The
19. Decoy Solicitation. chain of custody rule comes into play as a mode
of authenticating the seized illegal drug as
The chain of custody is not established evidence.
solely by compliance with the prescribed
physical inventory and photographing of the A substantial gap in the chain of custody
seized drugs in the presence of the enumerated renders the identity and integrity of the corpus
persons. The Implementing Rules and
th
Address: Unit 2, 4 Floor, España Place Building, 1139 Adelina Street corner España Boulevard 6
Sampaloc, Manila (Beside UST near Morayta Street)
* www.villasislawcenter.com / www.facebook.com/villasislawcenter / www.remediallawdoctrines.blogspot.com /
[email protected] / [email protected]
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
delicti dubious. (Lopez vs. People,G.R. No. served by penalizing people who have evidently
188653, January 29, 2014,Perez, J.) made amends for their mistakes and made
restitution for damages even before charges
First link of the chain, the seizure and have been filed against them. In effect, the
marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug payment of the checks before the filing of the
recovered from the accused by the information has already attained the purpose of
apprehending officer. the law. (Ariel T. Lim vs People, G.R. No.
190834, November 26, 2014, Peralta, J.)
Second link of the chain, the turnover of
the illegal drug seized by the apprehending
officer to the investigating officer. D. THE ANTI-CHILD ABUSE LAW
Third link of the chain, the turnover by
the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the 1. Elements of sexual abuse.
forensic chemist for laboratory examination.
In People v. Espinoza, it was held that
Fourth link of the chain, the turnover and healed lacerations do not negate rape. In fact,
submission of the marked illegal drug seized by lacerations, whether healed or fresh, are the
the forensic chemist to the court. (People vs. best physical evidence of forcible defloration. x x
Dahil and Castro, G.R. No. 212196, January x Moreover, in the present case, Dr.Orais
12, 2015, Mendoza, J.) clarified to the court that even if the alleged
sexual assault took place in the year 2005 or a
It has already been held that “the year after AAA was examined, the old healed
infractions of the so-called Miranda rights render lacerations could still be found. (People vs.
inadmissible only the extrajudicial confession or Sanico, G.R. No. 208469, August 13, 2014,
admission made during custodial Reyes, J.)
16
investigation.” Here, appellant’s conviction
was based not on his alleged uncounseled
confession or admission but on the testimony of 2. Higher penalty when victim is a child.
the prosecution witness. (People vs. Bio, G.R.
No. 195850, February 16, 2015,Del Castillo, The slightest penetration into one’s
J.) sexual organ distinguishes an act of
lasciviousness from the crime of rape. People v.
Bonaagua discussed this distinction: It must be
emphasized, however, that like in the crime of
C. BOUNCING CHECKS LAW rape whereby the slightest penetration of the
[BAR Q. ‘86, ‘88, ‘90, ‘96, ‘02, ‘03, male organ or even its slightest contact with the
’10, ‘14] outer lip or the labia majora of the vagina
already consummates the crime, in like
manner, if the tongue, in an act of cunnilingus,
Payment even beyond the 5-day period touches the outer lip of the vagina, the act
extinguishes criminal liability. should also be considered as already
consummating the crime of rape through sexual
Although payment of the value of the assault, not the crime of acts of
bounced check, if made beyond the 5-day lasciviousness. Notwithstanding, in the present
period provided for in B.P. Blg. 22, would case, such logical interpretation could not be
normally not extinguish criminal liability, the applied. It must be pointed out that the victim
aforementioned cases show that the Court testified that Ireno only touched her private part
acknowledges the existence of extraordinary and licked it, but did not insert his finger in her
cases where, even if all the elements of the vagina. This testimony of the victim, however, is
crime of offense are present, the conviction of open to various interpretation, since it cannot be
the accused would prove to be abhorrent to identified what specific part of the vagina was
society’s sense of justice. Just like in Griffith defiled by Ireno. Thus, in conformity with the
and in Tan, petitioner should not be penalized principle that the guilt of an accused must be
although all the elements of violation of B.P. Blg. proven beyond reasonable doubt, the statement
22 are proven to be present. The fact that the cannot be the basis for convicting Ireno with the
issuer of the check had already paid the value of crime of rape through sexual assault.
the dishonored check after having received the
subpoena from the Office of the Prosecutor
should have forestalled the filing of the E. INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW
Information in court. The spirit of the law which,
for B.P. Blg. 22, is the protection of the credibility [BAR Q. ‘88, ‘89, ‘90, ‘91, ‘94, ‘99, ‘02,
and stability of the banking system, would not be ‘03, ‘05, ‘07, ‘09, ’10, ‘14]
th
Address: Unit 2, 4 Floor, España Place Building, 1139 Adelina Street corner España Boulevard 7
Sampaloc, Manila (Beside UST near Morayta Street)
* www.villasislawcenter.com / www.facebook.com/villasislawcenter / www.remediallawdoctrines.blogspot.com /
[email protected] / [email protected]
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
1. Parole; Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9346
provides that persons convicted of offenses
punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose
sentences will be reduced to reclusion
perpetua, shall not be eligible for parole
under Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended.
(People of the Philippines vs. Vicente
Candellada,701 SCRA 19, G.R. No. 189293,
July 10, 2013, Leonardo-De Castro, J.)

2. Effect of suspension of death penalty.

Under Article 266-B of the Revised

Penal Code, as amended, the imposable penalty
for qualified rape is death. With the effectivity,
however, of Republic Act No. 9346, entitled, “An
Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty
in the Philippines,” the imposition of the supreme
penalty of death has been prohibited. Pursuant
to Section 241 thereof, the penalty to be meted
out to appellant shall be reclusion perpetua.
(People vs. Tabayan, G.R. No. 190620, June
18, 2014.Perez, J.)

“Adonai is a stronghold for the

oppressed,

a Tower of Strength in times of

trouble,

those who know your name put

their trust in You,

for You have not abandoned

those who seek You, Adonai”.

Psalms 9:10-11

th
Address: Unit 2, 4 Floor, España Place Building, 1139 Adelina Street corner España Boulevard 8
Sampaloc, Manila (Beside UST near Morayta Street)
* www.villasislawcenter.com / www.facebook.com/villasislawcenter / www.remediallawdoctrines.blogspot.com /
[email protected] / [email protected]
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626