Title V and Vi Crim Law

TITLE V AND VI CRIMINAL LAW ACJUCO 1
V. CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND dependence through sustainable programs of

OTHER PROHIBITED DRUGS treatment and rehabilitation.
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165 June 7, 2002 ARTICLE I
AN ACT INSTITUTING THE Definition of terms

COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS
ACT OF 2002, REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT Section 3. Definitions. As used in this Act, the
NO. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE following terms shall mean:
DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972, AS
AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, (a) Administer. – Any act of introducing any
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES dangerous drug into the body of any person,
with or without his/her knowledge, by injection,
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of inhalation, ingestion or other means, or of
Representatives of the Philippines in Congress committing any act of indispensable assistance
to a person in administering a dangerous drug
Section 1. Short Title. – This Act shall be known to himself/herself unless administered by a duly
and cited as the "Comprehensive Dangerous licensed practitioner for purposes of medication.
Drugs Act of 2002".
(b) Board. - Refers to the Dangerous Drugs
Section 2. Declaration of Policy. – It is the policy Board under Section 77, Article IX of this Act.
of the State to safeguard the integrity of its
territory and the well-being of its citizenry (c) Centers. - Any of the treatment and
particularly the youth, from the harmful effects of rehabilitation centers for drug dependents
dangerous drugs on their physical and mental referred to in Section 34, Article VIII of this Act.
well-being, and to defend the same against acts
or omissions detrimental to their development (d) Chemical Diversion. – The sale, distribution,
and preservation. In view of the foregoing, the supply or transport of legitimately imported, in-
State needs to enhance further the efficacy of transit, manufactured or procured controlled
the law against dangerous drugs, it being one of precursors and essential chemicals, in diluted,
today's more serious social ills. mixtures or in concentrated form, to any person
or entity engaged in the manufacture of any
Toward this end, the government shall pursue dangerous drug, and shall include packaging,
an intensive and unrelenting campaign against repackaging, labeling, relabeling or
the trafficking and use of dangerous drugs and concealment of such transaction through fraud,
other similar substances through an integrated destruction of documents, fraudulent use of
system of planning, implementation and permits, misdeclaration, use of front companies
enforcement of anti-drug abuse policies, or mail fraud.
programs, and projects. The government shall
however aim to achieve a balance in the (e) Clandestine Laboratory. – Any facility used
national drug control program so that people for the illegal manufacture of any dangerous
with legitimate medical needs are not prevented drug and/or controlled precursor and essential
from being treated with adequate amounts of chemical.
appropriate medications, which include the use
of dangerous drugs. (f) Confirmatory Test. – An analytical test using
a device, tool or equipment with a different
It is further declared the policy of the State to chemical or physical principle that is more
provide effective mechanisms or measures to specific which will validate and confirm the result
re-integrate into society individuals who have of the screening test.
fallen victims to drug abuse or dangerous drug
(g) Controlled Delivery. – The investigative (n) Drug Dependence. – As based on the World
technique of allowing an unlawful or suspect Health Organization definition, it is a cluster of
consignment of any dangerous drug and/or physiological, behavioral and cognitive
controlled precursor and essential chemical, phenomena of variable intensity, in which the
equipment or paraphernalia, or property use of psychoactive drug takes on a high priority
believed to be derived directly or indirectly from thereby involving, among others, a strong desire
any offense, to pass into, through or out of the or a sense of compulsion to take the substance
country under the supervision of an authorized and the difficulties in controlling substance-
officer, with a view to gathering evidence to taking behavior in terms of its onset,
identify any person involved in any dangerous termination, or levels of use.
drugs related offense, or to facilitate prosecution
of that offense. (o) Drug Syndicate. – Any organized group of
two (2) or more persons forming or joining
(h) Controlled Precursors and Essential together with the intention of committing any
Chemicals. – Include those listed in Tables I and offense prescribed under this Act.
II of the 1988 UN Convention Against Illicit
Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic (p) Employee of Den, Dive or Resort. – The
Substances as enumerated in the attached caretaker, helper, watchman, lookout, and other
annex, which is an integral part of this Act. persons working in the den, dive or resort,
employed by the maintainer, owner and/or
(i) Cultivate or Culture. – Any act of knowingly operator where any dangerous drug and/or
planting, growing, raising, or permitting the controlled precursor and essential chemical is
planting, growing or raising of any plant which is administered, delivered, distributed, sold or
the source of a dangerous drug. used, with or without compensation, in
connection with the operation thereof.
(j) Dangerous Drugs. – Include those listed in
the Schedules annexed to the 1961 Single (q) Financier. – Any person who pays for, raises
Convention on Narcotic Drugs, as amended by or supplies money for, or underwrites any of the
the 1972 Protocol, and in the Schedules illegal activities prescribed under this Act.
annexed to the 1971 Single Convention on
Psychotropic Substances as enumerated in the (r) Illegal Trafficking. – The illegal cultivation,
attached annex which is an integral part of this culture, delivery, administration, dispensation,
Act. manufacture, sale, trading, transportation,
distribution, importation, exportation and
(k) Deliver. – Any act of knowingly passing a possession of any dangerous drug and/or
dangerous drug to another, personally or controlled precursor and essential chemical.
otherwise, and by any means, with or without
consideration. (s) Instrument. – Any thing that is used in or
intended to be used in any manner in the
(l) Den, Dive or Resort. – A place where any commission of illegal drug trafficking or related
dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and offenses.
essential chemical is administered, delivered,
stored for illegal purposes, distributed, sold or (t) Laboratory Equipment. – The paraphernalia,
used in any form. apparatus, materials or appliances when used,
intended for use or designed for use in the
(m) Dispense. – Any act of giving away, selling manufacture of any dangerous drug and/or
or distributing medicine or any dangerous drug controlled precursor and essential chemical,
with or without the use of prescription. such as reaction vessel, preparative/purifying
equipment, fermentors, separatory funnel, flask,
heating mantle, gas generator, or their (y) Opium. – Refers to the coagulated juice of
substitute. the opium poppy (Papaver somniferum L.) and
embraces every kind, class and character of
(u) Manufacture. – The production, preparation, opium, whether crude or prepared; the ashes or
compounding or processing of any dangerous refuse of the same; narcotic preparations
drug and/or controlled precursor and essential thereof or therefrom; morphine or any alkaloid of
chemical, either directly or indirectly or by opium; preparations in which opium, morphine
extraction from substances of natural origin, or or any alkaloid of opium enters as an ingredient;
independently by means of chemical synthesis opium poppy; opium poppy straw; and leaves or
or by a combination of extraction and chemical wrappings of opium leaves, whether prepared
synthesis, and shall include any packaging or for use or not.
repackaging of such substances, design or
configuration of its form, or labeling or relabeling (z) Opium Poppy. – Refers to any part of the
of its container; except that such terms do not plant of the species Papaver somniferum L.,
include the preparation, compounding, Papaver setigerum DC, Papaver orientale,
packaging or labeling of a drug or other Papaver bracteatum and Papaver rhoeas,
substances by a duly authorized practitioner as which includes the seeds, straws, branches,
an incident to his/her administration or leaves or any part thereof, or substances
dispensation of such drug or substance in the derived therefrom, even for floral, decorative
course of his/her professional practice including and culinary purposes.
research, teaching and chemical analysis of
dangerous drugs or such substances that are (aa) PDEA. – Refers to the Philippine Drug
not intended for sale or for any other purpose. Enforcement Agency under Section 82, Article
IX of this Act.
(v) Cannabis or commonly known as
"Marijuana" or "Indian Hemp" or by its any other (bb) Person. – Any entity, natural or juridical,
name. – Embraces every kind, class, genus, or including among others, a corporation,
specie of the plant Cannabis sativa L. including, partnership, trust or estate, joint stock company,
but not limited to, Cannabis americana, hashish, association, syndicate, joint venture or other
bhang, guaza, churrus and ganjab, and unincorporated organization or group capable of
embraces every kind, class and character of acquiring rights or entering into obligations.
marijuana, whether dried or fresh and flowering,
flowering or fruiting tops, or any part or portion (cc) Planting of Evidence. – The willful act by
of the plant and seeds thereof, and all its any person of maliciously and surreptitiously
geographic varieties, whether as a reefer, resin, inserting, placing, adding or attaching directly or
extract, tincture or in any form whatsoever. indirectly, through any overt or covert act,
whatever quantity of any dangerous drug and/or
(w) Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) controlled precursor and essential chemical in
or commonly known as "Ecstasy", or by its any the person, house, effects or in the immediate
other name. – Refers to the drug having such vicinity of an innocent individual for the purpose
chemical composition, including any of its of implicating, incriminating or imputing the
isomers or derivatives in any form. commission of any violation of this Act.
(x) Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or (dd) Practitioner. – Any person who is a licensed

commonly known as "Shabu", "Ice", "Meth", or physician, dentist, chemist, medical
by its any other name. – Refers to the drug technologist, nurse, midwife, veterinarian or
having such chemical composition, including pharmacist in the Philippines.
any of its isomers or derivatives in any form.
(ee) Protector/Coddler. – Any person who
knowingly and willfully consents to the unlawful
acts provided for in this Act and uses his/her ARTICLE II

influence, power or position in shielding,
harboring, screening or facilitating the escape of Unlawful Acts and Penalties
any person he/she knows, or has reasonable
grounds to believe on or suspects, has violated Section 4. Importation of Dangerous Drugs
the provisions of this Act in order to prevent the and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential
arrest, prosecution and conviction of the Chemicals.- .The penalty of life imprisonment to
violator. death and a ranging from Five hundred
thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million
(ff) Pusher. – Any person who sells, trades, pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon
administers, dispenses, delivers or gives away any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall
to another, on any terms whatsoever, or import or bring into the Philippines any
distributes, dispatches in transit or transports dangerous drug, regardless of the quantity and
dangerous drugs or who acts as a broker in any purity involved, including any and all species of
of such transactions, in violation of this Act. opium poppy or any part thereof or substances
derived therefrom even for floral, decorative and
(gg) School. – Any educational institution, culinary purposes.
private or public, undertaking educational
operation for pupils/students pursuing certain The penalty of imprisonment ranging from
studies at defined levels, receiving instructions twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20)
from teachers, usually located in a building or a years and a fine ranging from One hundred
group of buildings in a particular physical or thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred
cyber site. thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall be
imposed upon any person, who, unless
(hh) Screening Test. – A rapid test performed to authorized by law, shall import any controlled
establish potential/presumptive positive result. precursor and essential chemical.
(ii) Sell. – Any act of giving away any dangerous The maximum penalty provided for under this
drug and/or controlled precursor and essential Section shall be imposed upon any person,
chemical whether for money or any other who, unless authorized under this Act, shall
consideration. import or bring into the Philippines any
dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and
(jj) Trading. – Transactions involving the illegal essential chemical through the use of a
trafficking of dangerous drugs and/or controlled diplomatic passport, diplomatic facilities or any
precursors and essential chemicals using other means involving his/her official status
electronic devices such as, but not limited to, intended to facilitate the unlawful entry of the
text messages, email, mobile or landlines, two- same. In addition, the diplomatic passport shall
way radios, internet, instant messengers and be confiscated and canceled.
chat rooms or acting as a broker in any of such
transactions whether for money or any other The maximum penalty provided for under this
consideration in violation of this Act. Section shall be imposed upon any person, who
organizes, manages or acts as a "financier" of
(kk) Use. – Any act of injecting, intravenously or any of the illegal activities prescribed in this
intramuscularly, of consuming, either by Section.
chewing, smoking, sniffing, eating, swallowing,
drinking or otherwise introducing into the The penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day
physiological system of the body, and of the to twenty (20) years of imprisonment and a fine
dangerous drugs. ranging from One hundred thousand pesos
(P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any
person, who acts as a "protector/coddler" of any and essential chemical involved in any offense
violator of the provisions under this Section. herein provided be the proximate cause of death
of a victim thereof, the maximum penalty
Section 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, provided for under this Section shall be
Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and imposed.
Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or
Controlled Precursors and Essential The maximum penalty provided for under this
Chemicals. - The penalty of life imprisonment to Section shall be imposed upon any person who
death and a fine ranging from Five hundred organizes, manages or acts as a "financier" of
thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million any of the illegal activities prescribed in this
pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon Section.
any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall
sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give The penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day
away to another, distribute dispatch in transit or to twenty (20) years of imprisonment and a fine
transport any dangerous drug, including any ranging from One hundred thousand pesos
and all species of opium poppy regardless of the (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos
quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a (P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any
broker in any of such transactions. person, who acts as a "protector/coddler" of any
violator of the provisions under this Section.
The penalty of imprisonment ranging from
twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) Section 6. Maintenance of a Den, Dive or
years and a fine ranging from One hundred Resort. - The penalty of life imprisonment to
thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred death and a fine ranging from Five hundred
thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall be thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million
imposed upon any person, who, unless pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon
authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, any person or group of persons who shall
dispense, deliver, give away to another, maintain a den, dive or resort where any
distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug is used or sold in any form.
controlled precursor and essential chemical, or
shall act as a broker in such transactions. The penalty of imprisonment ranging from
twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20)
If the sale, trading, administration, dispensation, years and a fine ranging from One hundred
delivery, distribution or transportation of any thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred
dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall be
essential chemical transpires within one imposed upon any person or group of persons
hundred (100) meters from the school, the who shall maintain a den, dive, or resort where
maximum penalty shall be imposed in every any controlled precursor and essential chemical
case. is used or sold in any form.
For drug pushers who use minors or mentally The maximum penalty provided for under this
incapacitated individuals as runners, couriers Section shall be imposed in every case where
and messengers, or in any other capacity any dangerous drug is administered, delivered
directly connected to the dangerous drugs or sold to a minor who is allowed to use the
and/or controlled precursors and essential same in such a place.
chemical trade, the maximum penalty shall be
imposed in every case. Should any dangerous drug be the proximate
cause of the death of a person using the same
If the victim of the offense is a minor or a in such den, dive or resort, the penalty of death
mentally incapacitated individual, or should a and a fine ranging from One million
dangerous drug and/or a controlled precursor (P1,000,000.00) to Fifteen million pesos
(P500,000.00) shall be imposed on the death and a fine ranging Five hundred thousand
maintainer, owner and/or operator. pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos
(P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any
If such den, dive or resort is owned by a third person, who, unless authorized by law, shall
person, the same shall be confiscated and engage in the manufacture of any dangerous
escheated in favor of the government: Provided, drug.
That the criminal complaint shall specifically
allege that such place is intentionally used in the The penalty of imprisonment ranging from
furtherance of the crime: Provided, further, That twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20)
the prosecution shall prove such intent on the years and a fine ranging from One hundred
part of the owner to use the property for such thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred
purpose: Provided, finally, That the owner shall thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall be
be included as an accused in the criminal imposed upon any person, who, unless
complaint. authorized by law, shall manufacture any
controlled precursor and essential chemical.
The maximum penalty provided for under this
Section shall be imposed upon any person who The presence of any controlled precursor and
organizes, manages or acts as a "financier" of essential chemical or laboratory equipment in
any of the illegal activities prescribed in this the clandestine laboratory is a prima facie proof
Section. of manufacture of any dangerous drug. It shall
be considered an aggravating circumstance if
The penalty twelve (12) years and one (1) day the clandestine laboratory is undertaken or
to twenty (20) years of imprisonment and a fine established under the following circumstances:
ranging from One hundred thousand pesos
(P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (a) Any phase of the manufacturing
(P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any process was conducted in the presence
person, who acts as a "protector/coddler" of any or with the help of minor/s:
(b) Any phase or manufacturing process
Section 7. Employees and Visitors of a Den, was established or undertaken within one
Dive or Resort. - The penalty of imprisonment hundred (100) meters of a residential,
ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day business, church or school premises;
to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from One
hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five (c) Any clandestine laboratory was
hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall secured or protected with booby traps;
be imposed upon:
(d) Any clandestine laboratory was
(a) Any employee of a den, dive or resort, concealed with legitimate business
who is aware of the nature of the place operations; or
as such; and
(e) Any employment of a practitioner,
(b) Any person who, not being included chemical engineer, public official or
in the provisions of the next preceding, foreigner.
paragraph, is aware of the nature of the
place as such and shall knowingly visit The maximum penalty provided for under this
the same Section shall be imposed upon any person, who
organizes, manages or acts as a "financier" of
Section 8. Manufacture of Dangerous Drugs any of the illegal activities prescribed in this
and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Section.
Chemicals. - The penalty of life imprisonment to
The penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day The maximum penalty provided for under this
to twenty (20) years of imprisonment and a fine Section shall be imposed upon any person, who
ranging from One hundred thousand pesos uses a minor or a mentally incapacitated
(P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos individual to deliver such equipment, instrument,
(P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any apparatus and other paraphernalia for
person, who acts as a "protector/coddler" of any dangerous drugs.
Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. -
Section 9. Illegal Chemical Diversion of The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a
Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos
- The penalty of imprisonment ranging from (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos
twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any
years and a fine ranging from One hundred person, who, unless authorized by law, shall
thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred possess any dangerous drug in the following
thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall be quantities, regardless of the degree of purity
imposed upon any person, who, unless thereof:
authorized by law, shall illegally divert any
controlled precursor and essential chemical. (1) 10 grams or more of opium;
Section 10. Manufacture or Delivery of (2) 10 grams or more of morphine;

Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus, and Other
Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs and/or (3) 10 grams or more of heroin;
Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals.
- The penalty of imprisonment ranging from (4) 10 grams or more of cocaine or
twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) cocaine hydrochloride;
years and a fine ranging from One hundred
thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred (5) 50 grams or more of
thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall be methamphetamine hydrochloride or
imposed upon any person who shall deliver, "shabu";
possess with intent to deliver, or manufacture
with intent to deliver equipment, instrument, (6) 10 grams or more of marijuana resin
apparatus and other paraphernalia for or marijuana resin oil;
dangerous drugs, knowing, or under
circumstances where one reasonably should (7) 500 grams or more of marijuana; and
know, that it will be used to plant, propagate,
cultivate, grow, harvest, manufacture, (8) 10 grams or more of other dangerous
compound, convert, produce, process, prepare, drugs such as, but not limited to,
test, analyze, pack, repack, store, contain or methylenedioxymethamphetamine
conceal any dangerous drug and/or controlled (MDA) or "ecstasy",
precursor and essential chemical in violation of paramethoxyamphetamine (PMA),
this Act. trimethoxyamphetamine (TMA), lysergic
acid diethylamine (LSD), gamma
The penalty of imprisonment ranging from six hydroxyamphetamine (GHB), and those
(6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and similarly designed or newly introduced
a fine ranging from Ten thousand pesos drugs and their derivatives, without
(P10,000.00) to Fifty thousand pesos having any therapeutic value or if the
(P50,000.00) shall be imposed if it will be used quantity possessed is far beyond
to inject, ingest, inhale or otherwise introduce therapeutic requirements, as determined
into the human body a dangerous drug in and promulgated by the Board in
violation of this Act.
accordance to Section 93, Article XI of to, MDMA or "ecstasy", PMA, TMA, LSD,
this Act. GHB, and those similarly designed or
newly introduced drugs and their
Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than derivatives, without having any
the foregoing quantities, the penalties shall be therapeutic value or if the quantity
graduated as follows: possessed is far beyond therapeutic
requirements; or less than three hundred
(1) Life imprisonment and a fine ranging (300) grams of marijuana.
from Four hundred thousand pesos
(P400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand Section 12. Possession of Equipment,
pesos (P500,000.00), if the quantity of Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia
methamphetamine hydrochloride or for Dangerous Drugs. - The penalty of
"shabu" is ten (10) grams or more but imprisonment ranging from six (6) months and
less than fifty (50) grams; one (1) day to four (4) years and a fine ranging
from Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) to Fifty
(2) Imprisonment of twenty (20) years thousand pesos (P50,000.00) shall be imposed
and one (1) day to life imprisonment and upon any person, who, unless authorized by
a fine ranging from Four hundred law, shall possess or have under his/her control
thousand pesos (P400,000.00) to Five any equipment, instrument, apparatus and other
hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking,
if the quantities of dangerous drugs are consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting,
five (5) grams or more but less than ten or introducing any dangerous drug into the
(10) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, body: Provided, That in the case of medical
cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, practitioners and various professionals who are
marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, required to carry such equipment, instrument,
methamphetamine hydrochloride or apparatus and other paraphernalia in the
"shabu", or other dangerous drugs such practice of their profession, the Board shall
as, but not limited to, MDMA or "ecstasy", prescribe the necessary implementing
PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those guidelines thereof.
similarly designed or newly introduced
drugs and their derivatives, without The possession of such equipment, instrument,
having any therapeutic value or if the apparatus and other paraphernalia fit or
quantity possessed is far beyond intended for any of the purposes enumerated in
therapeutic requirements; or three the preceding paragraph shall be prima
hundred (300) grams or more but less facie evidence that the possessor has smoked,
than five (hundred) 500) grams of consumed, administered to himself/herself,
marijuana; and injected, ingested or used a dangerous drug and
shall be presumed to have violated Section 15
(3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years of this Act.
and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and
a fine ranging from Three hundred Section 13. Possession of Dangerous Drugs
thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to Four During Parties, Social Gatherings or Meetings.
hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00), – Any person found possessing any dangerous
if the quantities of dangerous drugs are drug during a party, or at a social gathering or
less than five (5) grams of opium, meeting, or in the proximate company of at least
morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine two (2) persons, shall suffer the maximum
hydrochloride, marijuana resin or penalties provided for in Section 11 of this Act,
marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine regardless of the quantity and purity of such
hydrochloride or "shabu", or other dangerous drugs.
dangerous drugs such as, but not limited
Section 14. Possession of Equipment, materials of such dangerous drugs for medical
Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia experiments and research purposes, or for the
for Dangerous Drugs During Parties, Social creation of new types of medicine, the Board
Gatherings or Meetings. - The maximum penalty shall prescribe the necessary implementing
provided for in Section 12 of this Act shall be guidelines for the proper cultivation, culture,
imposed upon any person, who shall possess or handling, experimentation and disposal of such
have under his/her control any equipment, plants and materials.
instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia
fit or intended for smoking, consuming, The land or portions thereof and/or
administering, injecting, ingesting, or greenhouses on which any of said plants is
introducing any dangerous drug into the body, cultivated or cultured shall be confiscated and
during parties, social gatherings or meetings, or escheated in favor of the State, unless the
in the proximate company of at least two (2) owner thereof can prove lack of knowledge of
persons. such cultivation or culture despite the exercise
of due diligence on his/her part. If the land
Section 15. Use of Dangerous Drugs. – A involved is part of the public domain, the
person apprehended or arrested, who is found maximum penalty provided for under this
to be positive for use of any dangerous drug, Section shall be imposed upon the offender.
after a confirmatory test, shall be imposed a
penalty of a minimum of six (6) months The maximum penalty provided for under this
rehabilitation in a government center for the first Section shall be imposed upon any person, who
offense, subject to the provisions of Article VIII organizes, manages or acts as a "financier" of
of this Act. If apprehended using any dangerous any of the illegal activities prescribed in this
drug for the second time, he/she shall suffer the Section.
penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6)
years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years and The penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day
a fine ranging from Fifty thousand pesos to twenty (20) years of imprisonment and a fine
(P50,000.00) to Two hundred thousand pesos ranging from One hundred thousand pesos
(P200,000.00): Provided, That this Section shall (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos
not be applicable where the person tested is (P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any
also found to have in his/her possession such person, who acts as a "protector/coddler" of any
quantity of any dangerous drug provided for violator of the provisions under this Section.
under Section 11 of this Act, in which case the
provisions stated therein shall apply. Section 17. Maintenance and Keeping of
Original Records of Transactions on Dangerous
Section 16. Cultivation or Culture of Plants Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and
Classified as Dangerous Drugs or are Sources Essential Chemicals. - The penalty of
Thereof. - The penalty of life imprisonment to imprisonment ranging from one (1) year and one
death and a fine ranging from Five hundred (1) day to six (6) years and a fine ranging from
thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) to Fifty
pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon thousand pesos (P50,000.00) shall be imposed
any person, who shall plant, cultivate or culture upon any practitioner, manufacturer,
marijuana, opium poppy or any other plant wholesaler, importer, distributor, dealer or
regardless of quantity, which is or may hereafter retailer who violates or fails to comply with the
be classified as a dangerous drug or as a source maintenance and keeping of the original records
from which any dangerous drug may be of transactions on any dangerous drug and/or
manufactured or derived: Provided, That in the controlled precursor and essential chemical in
case of medical laboratories and medical accordance with Section 40 of this Act.
research centers which cultivate or culture
marijuana, opium poppy and other plants, or
An additional penalty shall be imposed through equipment, shall carry with it the confiscation
the revocation of the license to practice his/her and forfeiture, in favor of the government, of all
profession, in case of a practitioner, or of the the proceeds and properties derived from the
business, in case of a manufacturer, seller, unlawful act, including, but not limited to, money
importer, distributor, dealer or retailer. and other assets obtained thereby, and the
instruments or tools with which the particular
Section 18. Unnecessary Prescription of unlawful act was committed, unless they are the
Dangerous Drugs. – The penalty of property of a third person not liable for the
imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years unlawful act, but those which are not of lawful
and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine commerce shall be ordered destroyed without
ranging from One hundred thousand pesos delay pursuant to the provisions of Section 21 of
(P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos this Act.
(P500,000.00) and the additional penalty of the
revocation of his/her license to practice shall be After conviction in the Regional Trial Court in the
imposed upon the practitioner, who shall appropriate criminal case filed, the Court shall
prescribe any dangerous drug to any person immediately schedule a hearing for the
whose physical or physiological condition does confiscation and forfeiture of all the proceeds of
not require the use or in the dosage prescribed the offense and all the assets and properties of
therein, as determined by the Board in the accused either owned or held by him or in
consultation with recognized competent experts the name of some other persons if the same
who are authorized representatives of shall be found to be manifestly out of proportion
professional organizations of practitioners, to his/her lawful income: Provided, however,
particularly those who are involved in the care of That if the forfeited property is a vehicle, the
persons with severe pain. same shall be auctioned off not later than five
(5) days upon order of confiscation or forfeiture.
Section 19. Unlawful Prescription of Dangerous
Drugs. – The penalty of life imprisonment to During the pendency of the case in the Regional
death and a fine ranging from Five hundred Trial Court, no property, or income derived
thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million therefrom, which may be confiscated and
pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon forfeited, shall be disposed, alienated or
any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall transferred and the same shall be in custodia
make or issue a prescription or any other writing legis and no bond shall be admitted for the
purporting to be a prescription for any release of the same.
dangerous drug.
The proceeds of any sale or disposition of any
Section 20. Confiscation and Forfeiture of the property confiscated or forfeited under this
Proceeds or Instruments of the Unlawful Act, Section shall be used to pay all proper expenses
Including the Properties or Proceeds Derived incurred in the proceedings for the confiscation,
from the Illegal Trafficking of Dangerous Drugs forfeiture, custody and maintenance of the
and/or Precursors and Essential Chemicals. – property pending disposition, as well as
Every penalty imposed for the unlawful expenses for publication and court costs. The
importation, sale, trading, administration, proceeds in excess of the above expenses shall
dispensation, delivery, distribution, accrue to the Board to be used in its campaign
transportation or manufacture of any dangerous against illegal drugs.
drug and/or controlled precursor and essential
chemical, the cultivation or culture of plants Section 21. Custody and Disposition of
which are sources of dangerous drugs, and the Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered
possession of any equipment, instrument, Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous
apparatus and other paraphernalia for Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential
dangerous drugs including other laboratory Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or
Laboratory Equipment. – The PDEA shall take final certification shall be issued on the
charge and have custody of all dangerous completed forensic laboratory
drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, examination on the same within the next
controlled precursors and essential chemicals, twenty-four (24) hours;
as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or
laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized (4) After the filing of the criminal case, the
and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the Court shall, within seventy-two (72)
following manner: hours, conduct an ocular inspection of
the confiscated, seized and/or
(1) The apprehending team having initial surrendered dangerous drugs, plant
custody and control of the drugs shall, sources of dangerous drugs, and
immediately after seizure and controlled precursors and essential
confiscation, physically inventory and chemicals, including the
photograph the same in the presence of instruments/paraphernalia and/or
the accused or the person/s from whom laboratory equipment, and through the
such items were confiscated and/or PDEA shall within twenty-four (24) hours
seized, or his/her representative or thereafter proceed with the destruction or
counsel, a representative from the media burning of the same, in the presence of
and the Department of Justice (DOJ), the accused or the person/s from whom
and any elected public official who shall such items were confiscated and/or
be required to sign the copies of the seized, or his/her representative or
inventory and be given a copy thereof; counsel, a representative from the media
and the DOJ, civil society groups and any
(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon elected public official. The Board shall
confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, draw up the guidelines on the manner of
plant sources of dangerous drugs, proper disposition and destruction of
controlled precursors and essential such item/s which shall be borne by the
chemicals, as well as offender: Provided, That those item/s of
instruments/paraphernalia and/or lawful commerce, as determined by the
laboratory equipment, the same shall be Board, shall be donated, used or
submitted to the PDEA Forensic recycled for legitimate
Laboratory for a qualitative and purposes: Provided, further, That a
quantitative examination; representative sample, duly weighed and
recorded is retained;
(3) A certification of the forensic
laboratory examination results, which (5) The Board shall then issue a sworn
shall be done under oath by the forensic certification as to the fact of destruction
laboratory examiner, shall be issued or burning of the subject item/s which,
within twenty-four (24) hours after the together with the representative
receipt of the subject item/s: Provided, sample/s in the custody of the PDEA,
That when the volume of the dangerous shall be submitted to the court having
drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, jurisdiction over the case. In all
and controlled precursors and essential instances, the representative sample/s
chemicals does not allow the completion shall be kept to a minimum quantity as
of testing within the time frame, a partial determined by the Board;
laboratory examination report shall be
provisionally issued stating therein the (6) The alleged offender or his/her
quantities of dangerous drugs still to be representative or counsel shall be
examined by the forensic allowed to personally observe all of the
laboratory: Provided, however, That a above proceedings and his/her presence
shall not constitute an admission of guilt. Section 23. Plea-Bargaining Provision. – Any
In case the said offender or accused person charged under any provision of this Act
refuses or fails to appoint a regardless of the imposable penalty shall not be
representative after due notice in writing allowed to avail of the provision on plea-
to the accused or his/her counsel within bargaining.
seventy-two (72) hours before the actual
burning or destruction of the evidence in Section 24. Non-Applicability of the Probation
question, the Secretary of Justice shall Law for Drug Traffickers and Pushers. – Any
appoint a member of the public attorney's person convicted for drug trafficking or pushing
office to represent the former; under this Act, regardless of the penalty
imposed by the Court, cannot avail of the
(7) After the promulgation and judgment privilege granted by the Probation Law or
in the criminal case wherein the Presidential Decree No. 968, as amended.
representative sample/s was presented
as evidence in court, the trial prosecutor Section 25. Qualifying Aggravating
shall inform the Board of the final Circumstances in the Commission of a Crime by
termination of the case and, in turn, shall an Offender Under the Influence of Dangerous
request the court for leave to turn over Drugs. – Notwithstanding the provisions of any
the said representative sample/s to the law to the contrary, a positive finding for the use
PDEA for proper disposition and of dangerous drugs shall be a qualifying
destruction within twenty-four (24) hours aggravating circumstance in the commission of
from receipt of the same; and a crime by an offender, and the application of
the penalty provided for in the Revised Penal
(8) Transitory Provision: a) Within twenty- Code shall be applicable.
four (24) hours from the effectivity of this
Act, dangerous drugs defined herein Section 26. Attempt or Conspiracy. – Any
which are presently in possession of law attempt or conspiracy to commit the following
enforcement agencies shall, with leave of unlawful acts shall be penalized by the same
court, be burned or destroyed, in the penalty prescribed for the commission of the
presence of representatives of the Court, same as provided under this Act:
DOJ, Department of Health (DOH) and
the accused/and or his/her counsel, and, (a) Importation of any dangerous drug
b) Pending the organization of the PDEA, and/or controlled precursor and essential
the custody, disposition, and burning or chemical;
destruction of seized/surrendered
dangerous drugs provided under this (b) Sale, trading, administration,
Section shall be implemented by the dispensation, delivery, distribution and
DOH. transportation of any dangerous drug
and/or controlled precursor and essential
Section 22. Grant of Compensation, Reward chemical;
and Award. – The Board shall recommend to the
concerned government agency the grant of (c) Maintenance of a den, dive or resort
compensation, reward and award to any person where any dangerous drug is used in any
providing information and to law enforcers form;
participating in the operation, which results in
the successful confiscation, seizure or (d) Manufacture of any dangerous drug
surrender of dangerous drugs, plant sources of and/or controlled precursor and essential
dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and chemical; and
essential chemicals.
(e) Cultivation or culture of plants which Section 29. Criminal Liability for Planting of
are sources of dangerous drugs. Evidence. – Any person who is found guilty of
"planting" any dangerous drug and/or controlled
Section 27. Criminal Liability of a Public Officer precursor and essential chemical, regardless of
or Employee for Misappropriation, quantity and purity, shall suffer the penalty of
Misapplication or Failure to Account for the death.
Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered
Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Section 30. Criminal Liability of Officers of
Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Partnerships, Corporations, Associations or
Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Other Juridical Entities. – In case any violation
Laboratory Equipment Including the Proceeds of this Act is committed by a partnership,
or Properties Obtained from the Unlawful Act corporation, association or any juridical entity,
Committed. – The penalty of life imprisonment the partner, president, director, manager,
to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred trustee, estate administrator, or officer who
thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million consents to or knowingly tolerates such violation
pesos (P10,000,000.00), in addition to absolute shall be held criminally liable as a co-principal.
perpetual disqualification from any public office,
shall be imposed upon any public officer or The penalty provided for the offense under this
employee who misappropriates, misapplies or Act shall be imposed upon the partner,
fails to account for confiscated, seized or president, director, manager, trustee, estate
surrendered dangerous drugs, plant sources of administrator, or officer who knowingly
dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and authorizes, tolerates or consents to the use of a
essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia vehicle, vessel, aircraft, equipment or other
and/or laboratory equipment including the facility, as an instrument in the importation, sale,
proceeds or properties obtained from the trading, administration, dispensation, delivery,
unlawful acts as provided for in this Act. distribution, transportation or manufacture of
dangerous drugs, or chemical diversion, if such
Any elective local or national official found to vehicle, vessel, aircraft, equipment or other
have benefited from the proceeds of the instrument is owned by or under the control or
trafficking of dangerous drugs as prescribed in supervision of the partnership, corporation,
this Act, or have received any financial or association or juridical entity to which they are
material contributions or donations from natural affiliated.
or juridical persons found guilty of trafficking
dangerous drugs as prescribed in this Act, shall Section 31. Additional Penalty if Offender is an
be removed from office and perpetually Alien. – In addition to the penalties prescribed in
disqualified from holding any elective or the unlawful act committed, any alien who
appointive positions in the government, its violates such provisions of this Act shall, after
divisions, subdivisions, and intermediaries, service of sentence, be deported immediately
including government-owned or –controlled without further proceedings, unless the penalty
corporations. is death.
Section 28. Criminal Liability of Government Section 32. Liability to a Person Violating Any
Officials and Employees. – The maximum Regulation Issued by the Board. – The penalty
penalties of the unlawful acts provided for in this of imprisonment ranging from six (6) months
Act shall be imposed, in addition to absolute and one (1) day to four (4) years and a fine
perpetual disqualification from any public office, ranging from Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00)
if those found guilty of such unlawful acts are to Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) shall be
government officials and employees. imposed upon any person found violating any
regulation duly issued by the Board pursuant to
this Act, in addition to the administrative immunity from prosecution and

sanctions imposed by the Board. punishment.
Section 33. Immunity from Prosecution and Provided, further, That this immunity may be
Punishment. – Notwithstanding the provisions of enjoyed by such informant or witness who does
Section 17, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of not appear to be most guilty for the offense with
Criminal Procedure and the provisions of reference to which his/her information or
Republic Act No. 6981 or the Witness testimony were given: Provided, finally, That
Protection, Security and Benefit Act of 1991, there is no direct evidence available for the
any person who has violated Sections 7, 11, 12, State except for the information and testimony
14, 15, and 19, Article II of this Act, who of the said informant or witness.
voluntarily gives information about any violation
of Sections 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 13, and 16, Article II of Section 34. Termination of the Grant of
this Act as well as any violation of the offenses Immunity. – The immunity granted to the
mentioned if committed by a drug syndicate, or informant or witness, as prescribed in Section
any information leading to the whereabouts, 33 of this Act, shall not attach should it turn out
identities and arrest of all or any of the members subsequently that the information and/or
thereof; and who willingly testifies against such testimony is false, malicious or made only for
persons as described above, shall be exempted the purpose of harassing, molesting or in any
from prosecution or punishment for the offense way prejudicing the persons described in the
with reference to which his/her information of preceding Section against whom such
testimony were given, and may plead or prove information or testimony is directed against. In
the giving of such information and testimony in such case, the informant or witness shall be
bar of such prosecution: Provided, That the subject to prosecution and the enjoyment of all
following conditions concur: rights and benefits previously accorded him
under this Act or any other law, decree or order
(1) The information and testimony are shall be deemed terminated.
necessary for the conviction of the
persons described above; In case an informant or witness under this Act
fails or refuses to testify without just cause, and
(2) Such information and testimony are when lawfully obliged to do so, or should he/she
not yet in the possession of the State; violate any condition accompanying such
immunity as provided above, his/her immunity
(3) Such information and testimony can shall be removed and he/she shall likewise be
be corroborated on its material points; subject to contempt and/or criminal prosecution,
as the case may be, and the enjoyment of all
(4) the informant or witness has not been rights and benefits previously accorded him
previously convicted of a crime involving under this Act or in any other law, decree or
moral turpitude, except when there is no order shall be deemed terminated.
other direct evidence available for the
State other than the information and In case the informant or witness referred to
testimony of said informant or witness; under this Act falls under the applicability of this
and Section hereof, such individual cannot avail of
the provisions under Article VIII of this Act.
(5) The informant or witness shall strictly
and faithfully comply without delay, any Section 35. Accessory Penalties. – A person
condition or undertaking, reduced into convicted under this Act shall be disqualified to
writing, lawfully imposed by the State as exercise his/her civil rights such as but not
further consideration for the grant of 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 (c) Students of secondary and tertiary
property by any act or any conveyance inter schools. – Students of secondary and
vivos, and political rights such as but not limited tertiary schools shall, pursuant to the
to, the right to vote and be voted for. Such rights related rules and regulations as
shall also be suspended during the pendency of contained in the school's student
an appeal from such conviction. handbook and with notice to the parents,
undergo a random drug
ARTICLE III testing: Provided, That all drug testing
expenses whether in public or private
Dangerous Drugs Test and Record schools under this Section will be borne
Requirements by the government;
Section 36. Authorized Drug Testing. – (d) Officers and employees of public and
Authorized drug testing shall be done by any private offices. – Officers and employees
government forensic laboratories or by any of of public and private offices, whether
the drug testing laboratories accredited and domestic or overseas, shall be subjected
monitored by the DOH to safeguard the quality to undergo a random drug test as
of test results. The DOH shall take steps in contained in the company's work rules
setting the price of the drug test with DOH and regulations, which shall be borne by
accredited drug testing centers to further reduce the employer, for purposes of reducing
the cost of such drug test. The drug testing shall the risk in the workplace. Any officer or
employ, among others, two (2) testing methods, employee found positive for use of
the screening test which will determine the dangerous drugs shall be dealt with
positive result as well as the type of the drug administratively which shall be a ground
used and the confirmatory test which will for suspension or termination, subject to
confirm a positive screening test. Drug test the provisions of Article 282 of the Labor
certificates issued by accredited drug testing Code and pertinent provisions of the Civil
centers shall be valid for a one-year period from Service Law;
the date of issue which may be used for other
purposes. The following shall be subjected to (e) Officers and members of the military,
undergo drug testing: police and other law enforcement
agencies. – Officers and members of the
(a) Applicants for driver's license. – No military, police and other law
driver's license shall be issued or enforcement agencies shall undergo an
renewed to any person unless he/she annual mandatory drug test;
presents a certification that he/she has
undergone a mandatory drug test and (f) All persons charged before the
indicating thereon that he/she is free from prosecutor's office with a criminal offense
the use of dangerous drugs; having an imposable penalty of
imprisonment of not less than six (6)
(b) Applicants for firearm's license and years and one (1) day shall have to
for permit to carry firearms outside of undergo a mandatory drug test; and
residence. – All applicants for firearm's
license and permit to carry firearms (g) All candidates for public office
outside of residence shall undergo a whether appointed or elected both in the
mandatory drug test to ensure that they national or local government shall
are free from the use of dangerous undergo a mandatory drug test.
drugs: Provided, That all persons who by
the nature of their profession carry In addition to the above stated penalties
firearms shall undergo drug testing; in this Section, those found to be positive
for dangerous drugs use shall be subject tasked to license and accredit drug testing
to the provisions of Section 15 of this Act. centers in each province and city in order to
assure their capacity, competence, integrity and
Section 37. Issuance of False or Fraudulent stability to conduct the laboratory examinations
Drug Test Results. – Any person authorized, and tests provided in this Article, and appoint
licensed or accredited under this Act and its such technical and other personnel as may be
implementing rules to conduct drug examination necessary for the effective implementation of
or test, who issues false or fraudulent drug test this provision. The DOH shall also accredit
results knowingly, willfully or through gross physicians who shall conduct the drug
negligence, shall suffer the penalty of dependency examination of a drug dependent
imprisonment ranging from six (6) years and as well as the after-care and follow-up program
one (1) day to twelve (12) years and a fine for the said drug dependent. There shall be a
ranging from One hundred thousand pesos control regulations, licensing and accreditation
(P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos division under the supervision of the DOH for
(P500,000.00). this purpose.
An additional penalty shall be imposed through For this purpose, the DOH shall establish,
the revocation of the license to practice his/her operate and maintain drug testing centers in
profession in case of a practitioner, and the government hospitals, which must be provided
closure of the drug testing center. at least with basic technologically advanced
equipment and materials, in order to conduct the
Section 38. Laboratory Examination or Test on laboratory examination and tests herein
Apprehended/Arrested Offenders. – Subject to provided, and appoint such qualified and duly
Section 15 of this Act, any person apprehended trained technical and other personnel as may be
or arrested for violating the provisions of this Act necessary for the effective implementation of
shall be subjected to screening laboratory this provision.
examination or test within twenty-four (24)
hours, if the apprehending or arresting officer Section 40. Records Required for Transactions
has reasonable ground to believe that the on Dangerous Drug and Precursors and
person apprehended or arrested, on account of Essential Chemicals. –
physical signs or symptoms or other visible or
outward manifestation, is under the influence of a) Every pharmacist dealing in
dangerous drugs. If found to be positive, the dangerous drugs and/or controlled
results of the screening laboratory examination precursors and essential chemicals shall
or test shall be challenged within fifteen (15) maintain and keep an original record of
days after receipt of the result through a sales, purchases, acquisitions and
confirmatory test conducted in any accredited deliveries of dangerous drugs, indicating
analytical laboratory equipment with a gas therein the following information:
chromatograph/mass spectrometry equipment
or some such modern and accepted method, if (1) License number and address
confirmed the same shall be prima of the pharmacist;
facie evidence that such person has used
dangerous drugs, which is without prejudice for (2) Name, address and license of
the prosecution for other violations of the the manufacturer, importer or
provisions of this Act: Provided, That a positive wholesaler from whom the
screening laboratory test must be confirmed for dangerous drugs have been
it to be valid in a court of law. purchased;
Section 39. Accreditation of Drug Testing

Centers and Physicians. – The DOH shall be
(3) Quantity and name of the veterinarians or practitioners shall be

dangerous drugs purchased or written on forms exclusively issued by
acquired; and obtainable from the DOH. Such
forms shall be made of a special kind of
(4) Date of acquisition or paper and shall be distributed in such
purchase; quantities and contain such information
and other data as the DOH may, by rules
(5) Name, address and and regulations, require. Such forms
community tax certificate number shall only be issued by the DOH through
of the buyer; its authorized employees to licensed
physicians, dentists, veterinarians and
(6) Serial number of the practitioners in such quantities as the
prescription and the name of the Board may authorize. In emergency
physician, dentist, veterinarian or cases, however, as the Board may
practitioner issuing the same; specify in the public interest, a
prescription need not be accomplished
(7) Quantity and name of the on such forms. The prescribing
dangerous drugs sold or physician, dentist, veterinarian or
delivered; and practitioner shall, within three (3) days
after issuing such prescription, inform the
(8) Date of sale or delivery. DOH of the same in writing. No
prescription once served by the
A certified true copy of such record drugstore or pharmacy be reused nor any
covering a period of six (6) months, duly prescription once issued be refilled.
signed by the pharmacist or the owner of
the drugstore, pharmacy or chemical (c) All manufacturers, wholesalers,
establishment, shall be forwarded to the distributors, importers, dealers and
Board within fifteen (15) days following retailers of dangerous drugs and/or
the last day of June and December of controlled precursors and essential
each year, with a copy thereof furnished chemicals shall keep a record of all
the city or municipal health officer inventories, sales, purchases,
concerned. acquisitions and deliveries of the same
as well as the names, addresses and
(b) A physician, dentist, veterinarian or licenses of the persons from whom such
practitioner authorized to prescribe any items were purchased or acquired or to
dangerous drug shall issue the whom such items were sold or delivered,
prescription therefor in one (1) original the name and quantity of the same and
and two (2) duplicate copies. The the date of the transactions. Such
original, after the prescription has been records may be subjected anytime for
filled, shall be retained by the pharmacist review by the Board.
for a period of one (1) year from the date
of sale or delivery of such drug. One (1) ARTICLE IV
copy shall be retained by the buyer or by
the person to whom the drug is delivered Participation of the Family, Students,
until such drug is consumed, while the Teachers and School Authorities in the
second copy shall be retained by the Enforcement of this Act
person issuing the prescription.
Section 41. Involvement of the Family. – The
For purposes of this Act, all prescriptions family being the basic unit of the Filipino society
issued by physicians, dentists, shall be primarily responsible for the education
and awareness of the members of the family on Section 44. Heads, Supervisors, and Teachers
the ill effects of dangerous drugs and close of Schools. – For the purpose of enforcing the
monitoring of family members who may be provisions of Article II of this Act, all school
susceptible to drug abuse. heads, supervisors and teachers shall be
deemed persons in authority and, as such, are
Section 42. Student Councils and Campus hereby empowered to apprehend, arrest or
Organizations. – All elementary, secondary and cause the apprehension or arrest of any person
tertiary schools' student councils and campus who shall violate any of the said provisions,
organizations shall include in their activities a pursuant to Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of
program for the prevention of and deterrence in Court. They shall be deemed persons in
the use of dangerous drugs, and referral for authority if they are in the school or within its
treatment and rehabilitation of students for drug immediate vicinity, or even beyond such
dependence. immediate vicinity if they are in attendance at
any school or class function in their official
Section 43. School Curricula. – Instruction on capacity as school heads, supervisors, and
drug abuse prevention and control shall be teachers.
integrated in the elementary, secondary and
tertiary curricula of all public and private Any teacher or school employee, who discovers
schools, whether general, technical, vocational or finds that any person in the school or within
or agro-industrial as well as in non-formal, its immediate vicinity is liable for violating any of
informal and indigenous learning systems. Such said provisions, shall have the duty to report the
instructions shall include: same to the school head or immediate superior
who shall, in turn, report the matter to the proper
(1) Adverse effects of the abuse and authorities.
misuse of dangerous drugs on the
person, the family, the school and the Failure to do so in either case, within a
community; reasonable period from the time of discovery of
the violation shall, after due hearing, constitute
(2) Preventive measures against drug sufficient cause for disciplinary action by the
abuse; school authorities.
(3) Health, socio-cultural, psychological, Section 45. Publication and Distribution of

legal and economic dimensions and Materials on Dangerous Drugs. – With the
implications of the drug problem; assistance of the Board, the Secretary of the
Department of Education (DepEd), the
(4) Steps to take when intervention on Chairman of the Commission on Higher
behalf of a drug dependent is needed, as Education (CHED) and the Director-General of
well as the services available for the the Technical Education and Skills
treatment and rehabilitation of drug Development Authority (TESDA) shall cause the
dependents; and development, publication and distribution of
information and support educational materials
(5) Misconceptions about the use of on dangerous drugs to the students, the faculty,
dangerous drugs such as, but not limited the parents, and the community.
to, the importance and safety of
dangerous drugs for medical and Section 46. Special Drug Education Center. –
therapeutic use as well as the With the assistance of the Board, the
differentiation between medical patients Department of the Interior and Local
and drug dependents in order to avoid Government (DILG), the National Youth
confusion and accidental stigmatization Commission (NYC), and the Department of
in the consciousness of the students. Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) shall
establish in each of its provincial office a special Section 49. Labor Organizations and the
education drug center for out-of-school youth Private Sector. – All labor unions, federations,
and street children. Such Center which shall be associations, or organizations in cooperation
headed by the Provincial Social. Welfare with the respective private sector partners shall
Development Officer shall sponsor drug include in their collective bargaining or any
prevention programs and activities and similar agreements, joint continuing programs
information campaigns with the end in view of and information campaigns for the laborers
educating the out-of-school youth and street similar to the programs provided under Section
children regarding the pernicious effects of drug 47 of this Act with the end in view of achieving a
abuse. The programs initiated by the Center drug free workplace.
shall likewise be adopted in all public and
private orphanage and existing special centers Section 50. Government Assistance. – The
for street children. labor sector and the respective partners may, in
pursuit of the programs mentioned in the
ARTICLE V preceding Section, secure the technical
assistance, such as but not limited to, seminars
Promotion of a National Drug-Free and information dissemination campaigns of the
Workplace Program With the Participation of appropriate government and law enforcement
Private and Labor Sectors and the agencies.
Department of Labor and Employment
ARTICLE VII
Section 47. Drug-Free Workplace. – It is
deemed a policy of the State to promote drug- Participation of Local Government Units
free workplaces using a tripartite approach. With
the assistance of the Board, the Department of Section 51. Local Government Units'
Labor and Employment (DOLE) shall develop, Assistance. – Local government units shall
promote and implement a national drug abuse appropriate a substantial portion of their
prevention program in the workplace to be respective annual budgets to assist in or
adopted by private companies with ten (10) or enhance the enforcement of this Act giving
more employees. Such program shall include priority to preventive or educational programs
the mandatory drafting and adoption of and the rehabilitation or treatment of drug
company policies against drug use in the dependents.
workplace in close consultation and
coordination with the DOLE, labor and employer Section 52. Abatement of Drug Related Public
organizations, human resource development Nuisances. – Any place or premises which have
managers and other such private sector been used on two or more occasions as the site
organizations. of the unlawful sale or delivery of dangerous
drugs may be declared to be a public nuisance,
Section 48. Guidelines for the National Drug- and such nuisance may be abated, pursuant to
Free Workplace Program. – The Board and the the following procedures:
DOLE shall formulate the necessary guidelines
for the implementation of the national drug-free (1) Any city or municipality may, by
workplace program. The amount necessary for ordinance, create an administrative
the implementation of which shall be included in board to hear complaints regarding the
the annual General Appropriations Act. nuisances;
ARTICLE VI (2) any employee, officer, or resident of

the city or municipality may bring a
Participation of the Private and Labor complaint before the Board after giving
Sectors in the Enforcement of this Act not less than three (3) days written notice
of such complaint to the owner of the drug dependency. If the examination by a DOH-
place or premises at his/her last known accredited physician results in the issuance of a
address; and certification that the applicant is a drug
dependent, he/she shall be ordered by the Court
(3) After hearing in which the Board may to undergo treatment and rehabilitation in a
consider any evidence, including Center designated by the Board for a period of
evidence of the general reputation of the not less than six (6) months: Provided, That a
place or premises, and at which the drug dependent may be placed under the care
owner of the premises shall have an of a DOH-accredited physician where there is
opportunity to present evidence in his/her no Center near or accessible to the residence of
defense, the Board may declare the the drug dependent or where said drug
place or premises to be a public dependent is below eighteen (18) years of age
nuisance. and is a first-time offender and non-confinement
in a Center will not pose a serious danger to
Section 53. Effect of Board Declaration. – If the his/her family or the community.
Board declares a place or premises to be a
public nuisance, it may declare an order Confinement in a Center for treatment and
immediately prohibiting the conduct, operation, rehabilitation shall not exceed one (1) year, after
or maintenance of any business or activity on which time the Court, as well as the Board, shall
the premises which is conducive to such be apprised by the head of the treatment and
nuisance. rehabilitation center of the status of said drug
dependent and determine whether further
An order entered under this Section shall expire confinement will be for the welfare of the drug
after one (1) year or at such earlier time as dependent and his/her family or the community.
stated in the order. The Board may bring a
complaint seeking a permanent injunction Section 55. Exemption from the Criminal
against any nuisance described under this Liability Under the Voluntary Submission
Section. Program. A drug dependent under the voluntary
submission program, who is finally discharged
This Article does not restrict the right of any from confinement, shall be exempt from the
person to proceed under the Civil Code against criminal liability under Section 15 of this act
any public nuisance. subject to the following conditions:
ARTICLE VIII (1) He/she has complied with the rules

and regulations of the center, the
Program for Treatment and Rehabilitation of applicable rules and regulations of the
Drug Dependents Board, including the after-care and
follow-up program for at least eighteen
Section 54. Voluntary Submission of a Drug (18) months following temporary
Dependent to Confinement, Treatment and discharge from confinement in the Center
Rehabilitation. – A drug dependent or any or, in the case of a dependent placed
person who violates Section 15 of this Act may, under the care of the DOH-accredited
by himself/herself or through his/her parent, physician, the after-care program and
spouse, guardian or relative within the fourth follow-up schedule formulated by the
degree of consanguinity or affinity, apply to the DSWD and approved by the
Board or its duly recognized representative, for Board: Provided, That capability-building
treatment and rehabilitation of the drug of local government social workers shall
dependency. Upon such application, the Board be undertaken by the DSWD;
shall bring forth the matter to the Court which
shall order that the applicant be examined for
(2) He/she has never been charged or Section 57. Probation and Community Service
convicted of any offense punishable Under the Voluntary Submission Program. – A
under this Act, the Dangerous Drugs Act drug dependent who is discharged as
of 1972 or Republic Act No. 6425, as rehabilitated by the DOH-accredited Center
amended; the Revised Penal Code, as through the voluntary submission program, but
amended; or any special penal laws; does not qualify for exemption from criminal
liability under Section 55 of this Act, may be
(3) He/she has no record of escape from charged under the provisions of this Act, but
a Center: Provided, That had he/she shall be placed on probation and undergo a
escaped, he/she surrendered by community service in lieu of imprisonment
himself/herself or through his/her parent, and/or fine in the discretion of the court, without
spouse, guardian or relative within the prejudice to the outcome of any pending case
fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity, filed in court.
within one (1) week from the date of the
said escape; and Such drug dependent shall undergo community
service as part of his/her after-care and follow-
(4) He/she poses no serious danger to up program, which may be done in coordination
himself/herself, his/her family or the with nongovernmental civil organizations
community by his/her exemption from accredited by the DSWD, with the
criminal liability. recommendation of the Board.
Section 56. Temporary Release From the Section 58. Filing of Charges Against a Drug
Center; After-Care and Follow-Up Treatment Dependent Who is Not Rehabilitated Under the
Under the Voluntary Submission Program. – Voluntary Submission Program. – A drug
Upon certification of the Center that the drug dependent, who is not rehabilitated after the
dependent within the voluntary submission second commitment to the Center under the
program may be temporarily released, the Court voluntary submission program, shall, upon
shall order his/her release on condition that said recommendation of the Board, be charged for
drug dependent shall report to the DOH for violation of Section 15 of this Act and
after-care and follow-up treatment, including prosecuted like any other offender. If convicted,
urine testing, for a period not exceeding he/she shall be credited for the period of
eighteen (18) months under such terms and confinement and rehabilitation in the Center in
conditions that the Court may impose. the service of his/her sentence.
If during the period of after-care and follow-up, Section 59. Escape and Recommitment for
the drug dependent is certified to be Confinement and Rehabilitation Under the
rehabilitated, he/she may be discharged by the Voluntary Submission Program. – Should a drug
Court, subject to the provisions of Section 55 of dependent under the voluntary submission
this Act, without prejudice to the outcome of any program escape from the Center, he/she may
pending case filed in court. submit himself/herself for recommitment within
one (1) week therefrom, or his/her parent,
However, should the DOH find that during the spouse, guardian or relative within the fourth
initial after-care and follow-up program of degree of consanguinity or affinity may, within
eighteen (18) months, the drug dependent said period, surrender him for recommitment, in
requires further treatment and rehabilitation in which case the corresponding order shall be
the Center, he/she shall be recommitted to the issued by the Board.
Center for confinement. Thereafter, he/she may
again be certified for temporary release and Should the escapee fail to submit
ordered released for another after-care and himself/herself or be surrendered after one (1)
follow-up program pursuant to this Section. week, the Board shall apply to the court for a
recommitment order upon proof of previous If after such hearing and the facts so warrant,
commitment or his/her voluntary submission by the court shall order the drug dependent to be
the Board, the court may issue an order for examined by two (2) physicians accredited by
recommitment within one (1) week. the Board. If both physicians conclude that the
respondent is not a drug dependent, the court
If, subsequent to a recommitment, the shall order his/her discharge. If either physician
dependent once again escapes from finds him to be a dependent, the court shall
confinement, he/she shall be charged for conduct a hearing and consider all relevant
violation of Section 15 of this Act and he evidence which may be offered. If the court finds
subjected under section 61 of this Act, either him a drug dependent, it shall issue an order for
upon order of the Board or upon order of the his/her commitment to a treatment and
court, as the case may be. rehabilitation center under the supervision of the
DOH. In any event, the order of discharge or
Section 60. Confidentiality of Records Under order of confinement or commitment shall be
the Voluntary Submission Program. – Judicial issued not later than fifteen (15) days from the
and medical records of drug dependents under filing of the appropriate petition.
the voluntary submission program shall be
confidential and shall not be used against him Section 62. Compulsory Submission of a Drug
for any purpose, except to determine how many Dependent Charged with an Offense to
times, by himself/herself or through his/her Treatment and Rehabilitation. – If a person
parent, spouse, guardian or relative within the charged with an offense where the imposable
fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity, he/she penalty is imprisonment of less than six (6)
voluntarily submitted himself/herself for years and one (1) day, and is found by the
confinement, treatment and rehabilitation or has prosecutor or by the court, at any stage of the
been committed to a Center under this program. proceedings, to be a drug dependent, the
prosecutor or the court as the case may be, shall
Section 61. Compulsory Confinement of a Drug suspend all further proceedings and transmit
Dependent Who Refuses to Apply Under the copies of the record of the case to the Board.
Voluntary Submission Program. –
Notwithstanding any law, rule and regulation to In the event he Board determines, after medical
the contrary, any person determined and found examination, that public interest requires that
to be dependent on dangerous drugs shall, such drug dependent be committed to a center
upon petition by the Board or any of its for treatment and rehabilitation, it shall file a
authorized representative, be confined for petition for his/her commitment with the regional
treatment and rehabilitation in any Center duly trial court of the province or city where he/she is
designated or accredited for the purpose. being investigated or tried: Provided, That
where a criminal case is pending in court, such
A petition for the confinement of a person petition shall be filed in the said court. The court
alleged to be dependent on dangerous drugs to shall take judicial notice of the prior proceedings
a Center may be filed by any person authorized in the case and shall proceed to hear the
by the Board with the Regional Trial Court of the petition. If the court finds him to be a drug
province or city where such person is found. dependent, it shall order his/her commitment to
a Center for treatment and rehabilitation. The
After the petition is filed, the court, by an order, head of said Center shall submit to the court
shall immediately fix a date for the hearing, and every four (4) months, or as often as the court
a copy of such order shall be served on the may require, a written report on the progress of
person alleged to be dependent on dangerous the treatment. If the dependent is rehabilitated,
drugs, and to the one having charge of him. as certified by the center and the Board, he/she
shall be returned to the court, which committed
him, for his/her discharge therefrom.
Thereafter, his/her prosecution for any offense Board escape therefrom, he/she may resubmit
punishable by law shall be instituted or shall himself/herself for confinement within one (1)
continue, as the case may be. In case of week from the date of his/her escape; or his/her
conviction, the judgment shall, if the accused is parent, spouse, guardian or relative within the
certified by the treatment and rehabilitation fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity may,
center to have maintained good behavior, within the same period, surrender him for
indicate that he/she shall be given full credit for recommitment. If, however, the drug dependent
the period he/she was confined in the does not resubmit himself/herself for
Center: Provided, however, That when the confinement or he/she is not surrendered for
offense is for violation of Section 15 of this Act recommitment, the Board may apply with the
and the accused is not a recidivist, the penalty court for the issuance of the recommitment
thereof shall be deemed to have been served in order. Upon proof of previous commitment, the
the Center upon his/her release therefrom after court shall issue an order for recommitment. If,
certification by the Center and the Board that subsequent to such recommitment, he/she
he/she is rehabilitated. should escape again, he/she shall no longer be
exempt from criminal liability for use of any
Section 63. Prescription of the Offense dangerous drug.
Charged Against a Drug Dependent Under the
Compulsory Submission Program. – The period A drug dependent committed under this
of prescription of the offense charged against a particular Section who is finally discharged from
drug dependent under the compulsory confinement shall be exempt from criminal
submission program shall not run during the liability under Section 15 of this Act, without
time that the drug dependent is under prejudice to the outcome of any pending case
confinement in a Center or otherwise under the filed in court. On the other hand, a drug
treatment and rehabilitation program approved dependent who is not rehabilitated after a
by the Board. second commitment to the Center shall, upon
conviction by the appropriate court, suffer the
Upon certification of the Center that he/she may same penalties provided for under Section 15 of
temporarily be discharged from the said Center, this Act again without prejudice to the outcome
the court shall order his/her release on condition of any pending case filed in court.
that he/she shall report to the Board through the
DOH for after-care and follow-up treatment for a Section 64. Confidentiality of Records Under
period not exceeding eighteen (18) months the Compulsory Submission Program. – The
under such terms and conditions as may be records of a drug dependent who was
imposed by the Board. rehabilitated and discharged from the Center
under the compulsory submission program, or
If at anytime during the after-care and follow-up who was charged for violation of Section 15 of
period, the Board certifies to his/her complete this Act, shall be covered by Section 60 of this
rehabilitation, the court shall order his/her final Act. However, the records of a drug dependent
discharge from confinement and order for the who was not rehabilitated, or who escaped but
immediate resumption of the trial of the case for did not surrender himself/herself within the
which he/she is originally charged. Should the prescribed period, shall be forwarded to the
Board through the DOH find at anytime during court and their use shall be determined by the
the after-care and follow-up period that he/she court, taking into consideration public interest
requires further treatment and rehabilitation, it and the welfare of the drug dependent.
shall report to the court, which shall order
his/her recommitment to the Center. Section 65. Duty of the Prosecutor in the
Proceedings. – It shall be the duty of the
Should the drug dependent, having been provincial or the city prosecutor or their
committed to a Center upon petition by the assistants or state prosecutors to prepare the
appropriate petition in all proceedings arising Section 67. Discharge After Compliance with
from this Act. Conditions of Suspended Sentence of a First-
Time Minor Offender. – If the accused first time
Section 66. Suspension of Sentence of a First- minor offender under suspended sentence
Time Minor Offender. – An accused who is over complies with the applicable rules and
fifteen (15) years of age at the time of the regulations of the Board, including confinement
commission of the offense mentioned in Section in a Center, the court, upon a favorable
11 of this Act, but not more than eighteen (18) recommendation of the Board for the final
years of age at the time when judgment should discharge of the accused, shall discharge the
have been promulgated after having been found accused and dismiss all proceedings.
guilty of said offense, may be given the benefits
of a suspended sentence, subject to the Upon the dismissal of the proceedings against
following conditions: the accused, the court shall enter an order to
expunge all official records, other than the
(a) He/she has not been previously confidential record to be retained by the DOJ
convicted of violating any provision of this relating to the case. Such an order, which shall
Act, or of the Dangerous Drugs Act of be kept confidential, shall restore the accused to
1972, as amended; or of the Revised his/her status prior to the case. He/she shall not
Penal Code; or of any special penal laws; be held thereafter to be guilty of perjury or of
concealment or misrepresentation by reason of
(b) He/she has not been previously his/her failure to acknowledge the case or recite
committed to a Center or to the care of a any fact related thereto in response to any
DOH-accredited physician; and inquiry made of him for any purpose.
(c) The Board favorably recommends Section 68. Privilege of Suspended Sentence
that his/her sentence be suspended. to be Availed of Only Once by a First-Time Minor
Offender. – The privilege of suspended
While under suspended sentence, he/she shall sentence shall be availed of only once by an
be under the supervision and rehabilitative accused drug dependent who is a first-time
surveillance of the Board, under such conditions offender over fifteen (15) years of age at the
that the court may impose for a period ranging time of the commission of the violation of
from six (6) months to eighteen (18) months. Section 15 of this Act but not more than eighteen
(18) years of age at the time when judgment
Upon recommendation of the Board, the court should have been promulgated.
may commit the accused under suspended
sentence to a Center, or to the care of a DOH- Section 69. Promulgation of Sentence for First-
accredited physician for at least six (6) months, Time Minor Offender. – If the accused first-time
with after-care and follow-up program for not minor offender violates any of the conditions of
more than eighteen (18) months. his/her suspended sentence, the applicable
rules and regulations of the Board exercising
In the case of minors under fifteen (15) years of supervision and rehabilitative surveillance over
age at the time of the commission of any offense him, including the rules and regulations of the
penalized under this Act, Article 192 of Center should confinement be required, the
Presidential Decree No. 603, otherwise known court shall pronounce judgment of conviction
as the Child and Youth Welfare Code, as and he/she shall serve sentence as any other
amended by Presidential Decree No. 1179 shall convicted person.
apply, without prejudice to the application of the
provisions of this Section. Section 70. Probation or Community Service for
a First-Time Minor Offender in Lieu of
Imprisonment. – Upon promulgation of the
sentence, the court may, in its discretion, place Section 72. Liability of a Person Who Violates
the accused under probation, even if the the Confidentiality of Records. – The penalty of
sentence provided under this Act is higher than imprisonment ranging from six (6) months and
that provided under existing law on probation, or one (1) day to six (6) years and a fine ranging
impose community service in lieu of from One thousand pesos (P1,000.00) to Six
imprisonment. In case of probation, the thousand pesos (P6,000.00), shall be imposed
supervision and rehabilitative surveillance shall upon any person who, having official custody of
be undertaken by the Board through the DOH in or access to the confidential records of any drug
coordination with the Board of Pardons and dependent under voluntary submission
Parole and the Probation Administration. Upon programs, or anyone who, having gained
compliance with the conditions of the probation, possession of said records, whether lawfully or
the Board shall submit a written report to the not, reveals their content to any person other
court recommending termination of probation than those charged with the prosecution of the
and a final discharge of the probationer, offenses under this Act and its implementation.
whereupon the court shall issue such an order. The maximum penalty shall be imposed, in
addition to absolute perpetual disqualification
The community service shall be complied with from any public office, when the offender is a
under conditions, time and place as may be government official or employee. Should the
determined by the court in its discretion and records be used for unlawful purposes, such as
upon the recommendation of the Board and blackmail of the drug dependent or the
shall apply only to violators of Section 15 of this members of his/her family, the penalty imposed
Act. The completion of the community service for the crime of violation of confidentiality shall
shall be under the supervision and rehabilitative be in addition to whatever crime he/she may be
surveillance of the Board during the period convicted of.
required by the court. Thereafter, the Board
shall render a report on the manner of Section 73. Liability of a Parent, Spouse or
compliance of said community service. The Guardian Who Refuses to Cooperate with the
court in its discretion may require extension of Board or any Concerned Agency. – Any parent,
the community service or order a final spouse or guardian who, without valid reason,
discharge. refuses to cooperate with the Board or any
concerned agency in the treatment and
In both cases, the judicial records shall be rehabilitation of a drug dependent who is a
covered by the provisions of Sections 60 and 64 minor, or in any manner, prevents or delays the
of this Act. after-care, follow-up or other programs for the
welfare of the accused drug dependent, whether
If the sentence promulgated by the court under voluntary submission program or
requires imprisonment, the period spent in the compulsory submission program, may be cited
Center by the accused during the suspended for contempt by the court.
sentence period shall be deducted from the
sentence to be served. Section 74. Cost-Sharing in the Treatment and
Rehabilitation of a Drug Dependent. – The
Section 71. Records to be kept by the parent, spouse, guardian or any relative within
Department of Justice. – The DOJ shall keep a the fourth degree of consanguinity of any person
confidential record of the proceedings on who is confined under the voluntary submission
suspension of sentence and shall not be used program or compulsory submission program
for any purpose other than to determine whether shall be charged a certain percentage of the
or not a person accused under this Act is a first- cost of his/her treatment and rehabilitation, the
time minor offender. guidelines of which shall be formulated by the
DSWD taking into consideration the economic
status of the family of the person confined. The
guidelines therein formulated shall be (3) Encourage, assist and accredit

implemented by a social worker of the local private centers, promulgate rules and
government unit. regulations setting minimum standards
for their accreditation to assure their
Section 75. Treatment and Rehabilitation competence, integrity and stability;
Centers. – The existing treatment and
rehabilitation centers for drug dependents (4) Prescribe and promulgate rules and
operated and maintained by the NBI and the regulations governing the establishment
PNP shall be operated, maintained and of such Centers as it may deem
managed by the DOH in coordination with other necessary after conducting a feasibility
concerned agencies. For the purpose of study thereof;
enlarging the network of centers, the Board
through the DOH shall encourage, promote or (5) The DOH shall, without prejudice to
whenever feasible, assist or support in the the criminal prosecution of those found
establishment, operations and maintenance of guilty of violating this Act, order the
private centers which shall be eligible to receive closure of a Center for treatment and
grants, donations or subsidy from either rehabilitation of drug dependency when,
government or private sources. It shall also after investigation it is found guilty of
support the establishment of government- violating the provisions of this Act or
operated regional treatment and rehabilitation regulations issued by the Board; and
centers depending upon the availability of funds.
The national government, through its (6) Charge reasonable fees for drug
appropriate agencies shall give priority funding dependency examinations, other medical
for the increase of subsidy to existing and legal services provided to the public,
government drug rehabilitation centers, and which shall accrue to the Board. All
shall establish at least one (1) drug rehabilitation income derived from these sources shall
center in each province, depending on the be part of the funds constituted as special
availability of funds. funds for the implementation of this Act
under Section 87.
Section 76. The Duties and Responsibilities of
the Department of health (DOH) Under this Act. ARTICLE IX
– The DOH shall:
Dangerous Drugs Board and Philippine Drug
(1) Oversee the monitor the integration, Enforcement Agency
coordination and supervision of all drug
rehabilitation, intervention, after-care and Section 77. The Dangerous Drugs Board. – The
follow-up programs, projects and Board shall be the policy-making and strategy-
activities as well as the establishment, formulating body in the planning and formulation
operations, maintenance and of policies and programs on drug prevention and
management of privately-owned drug control. It shall develop and adopt a
treatment rehabilitation centers and drug comprehensive, integrated, unified and
testing networks and laboratories balanced national drug abuse prevention and
throughout the country in coordination control strategy. It shall be under the Office of
with the DSWD and other agencies; the President.
(2) License, accredit, establish and Section 78. Composition of the Board. – The
maintain drug test network and Board shall be composed of seventeen (17)
laboratory, initiate, conduct and support members wherein three (3) of which are
scientific research on drugs and drug permanent members, the other twelve (12)
control;
members shall be in an ex officio capacity and (8) Secretary of the Department of

the two (2) shall be regular members. Foreign Affairs or his/her representative;
The three (3) permanent members, who shall (9) Secretary of the Department of
possess at least seven-year training and Education or his/her representative;
experience in the field of dangerous drugs and
in any of the following fields: in law, medicine, (10) Chairman of the Commission on
criminology, psychology or social work, shall be Higher Education or his/her
appointed by the President of the Philippines. representative;
The President shall designate a Chairman, who
shall have the rank of a secretary from among (11) Chairman of the National Youth
the three (3) permanent members who shall Commission;
serve for six (6) years. Of the two (2) other
members, who shall both have the rank of (12) Director General of the Philippine
undersecretary, one (1) shall serve for four (4) Drug Enforcement Agency.
years and the other for two (2) years.
Thereafter, the persons appointed to succeed Cabinet secretaries who are members of the
such members shall hold office for a term of six Board may designate their duly authorized and
(6) years and until their successors shall have permanent representatives whose ranks shall in
been duly appointed and qualified. no case be lower than undersecretary.
The other twelve (12) members who shall be ex The two (2) regular members shall be as
officio members of the Board are the following: follows:
(1) Secretary of the Department of (a) The president of the Integrated Bar of
Justice or his/her representative; the Philippines; and
(2) Secretary of the Department of Health (b) The chairman or president of a non-
or his/her representative; government organization involved in
dangerous drug campaign to be
(3) Secretary of the Department of appointed by the President of the
National Defense or his/her Philippines.
representative;
The Director of the NBI and the Chief of the PNP
(4) Secretary of the Department of shall be the permanent consultants of the
Finance or his/her representative; Board, and shall attend all the meetings of the
Board.
(5) Secretary of the Department of Labor
and Employment or his/her All members of the Board as well as its
representative; permanent consultants shall receive a per diem
for every meeting actually attended subject to
(6) Secretary of the Department of the the pertinent budgetary laws, rules and
Interior and Local Government or his/her regulations on compensation, honoraria and
representative; allowances: Provided, That where the
representative of an ex officio member or of the
(7) Secretary of the Department of Social permanent consultant of the Board attends a
Welfare and Development or his/her meeting in behalf of the latter, such
representative; representative shall be entitled to receive the
per diem.
Section 79. Meetings of the Board. – The Board burning or condemnation of any
shall meet once a week or as often as necessary dangerous drug and/or controlled
at the discretion of the Chairman or at the call of precursor and essential chemical under
any four (4) other members. The presence of its charge and custody, and prescribe
nine (9) members shall constitute a quorum. administrative remedies or sanctions for
the violations of such rules and
Section 80. Secretariat of the Board. – The regulations;
Board shall recommend to the President of the
Philippines the appointment of an Executive (c) Conduct policy studies, program
Director, with the rank of an undersecretary, monitoring and evaluations and other
who shall be the Secretary of the Board and researches on drug prevention, control
administrative officer of its secretariat, and shall and enforcement;
perform such other duties that may be assigned
to him/her. He/she must possess adequate (d) Initiate, conduct and support
knowledge, training and experience in the field scientific, clinical, social, psychological,
of dangerous drugs, and in any of the following physical and biological researches on
fields: law enforcement, law, medicine, dangerous drugs and dangerous drugs
criminology, psychology or social work. prevention and control measures;
Two deputies executive director, for (e) Develop an educational program and
administration and operations, with the ranks of information drive on the hazards and
assistant secretary, shall be appointed by the prevention of illegal use of any
President upon recommendation of the Board. dangerous drug and/or controlled
They shall possess the same qualifications as precursor and essential chemical based
those of the executive director. They shall on factual data, and disseminate the
receive a salary corresponding to their position same to the general public, for which
as prescribed by the Salary Standardization purpose the Board shall endeavor to
Law as a Career Service Officer. make the general public aware of the
hazards of any dangerous drugs and/or
The existing secretariat of the Board shall be controlled precursor and essential
under the administrative control and supervision chemical by providing among others,
of the Executive Director. It shall be composed literature, films, displays or
of the following divisions, namely: Policy advertisements and by coordinating with
Studies, Research and Statistics; Preventive all institutions of learning as well as with
Education, Training and Information; Legal all national and local enforcement
Affairs; and the Administrative and Financial agencies in planning and conducting its
Management. educational campaign programs to be
implemented by the appropriate
Section 81. Powers and Duties of the Board. – government agencies;
The Board shall:
(f) Conduct continuing seminars for, and
(a) Formulate, develop and establish a consultations with, and provide
comprehensive, integrated, unified and information materials to judges and
balanced national drug use prevention prosecutors in coordination with the
and control strategy; Office of the Court Administrator, in the
case of judges, and the DOJ, in the case
(b) Promulgate such rules and of prosecutors, which aim to provide
regulations as may be necessary to carry them with the current developments and
out the purposes of this Act, including the programs of the Board pertinent to its
manner of safekeeping, disposition, campaign against dangerous drugs and
its scientific researches on dangerous (l) Receive, gather, collect and evaluate
drugs, its prevention and control all information on the importation,
measures; exportation, production, manufacture,
sale, stocks, seizures of and the
(g) Design special trainings in order to estimated need for any dangerous drug
provide law enforcement officers, and/or controlled precursor and essential
members of the judiciary, and chemical, for which purpose the Board
prosecutors, school authorities and may require from any official,
personnel of centers with knowledge and instrumentality or agency of the
know-how in dangerous drugs and/or government or any private person or
controlled precursors and essential enterprise dealing in, or engaged in
chemicals control in coordination with the activities having to do with any
Supreme Court to meet the objectives of dangerous drug and/or controlled
the national drug control programs; precursors and essential chemicals such
data or information as it may need to
(h) Design and develop, in consultation implement this Act;
and coordination with the DOH, DSWD
and other agencies involved in drugs (m) Gather and prepare detailed
control, treatment and rehabilitation, both statistics on the importation, exportation,
public and private, a national treatment manufacture, stocks, seizures of and
and rehabilitation program for drug estimates need for any dangerous drug
dependents including a standard and/or controlled precursors and
aftercare and community service essential chemicals and such other
program for recovering drug dependents; statistical data on said drugs as may be
periodically required by the United
(i) Design and develop, jointly with the Nations Narcotics Drug Commission, the
DOLE and in consultation with labor and World Health Organization and other
employer groups as well as international organizations in
nongovernment organizations a drug consonance with the country's
abuse prevention program in the international commitments;
workplace that would include a provision
for employee assistance programs for (n) Develop and maintain international
emotionally-stressed employees; networking coordination with
international drug control agencies and
(j) Initiate and authorize closure organizations, and implement the
proceedings against non-accredited provisions of international conventions
and/or substandard rehabilitation centers and agreements thereon which have
based on verified reports of human rights been adopted and approved by the
violations, subhuman conditions, Congress of the Philippines;
inadequate medical training and
assistance and excessive fees for (o) Require all government and private
implementation by the PDEA; hospitals, clinics, doctors, dentists and
other practitioners to submit a report to it,
(k) Prescribe and promulgate rules and in coordination with the PDEA, about all
regulations governing the establishment dangerous drugs and/or controlled
of such centers, networks and precursors and essential chemicals-
laboratories as deemed necessary after related cases to which they have
conducting a feasibility study in attended for statistics and research
coordination with the DOH and other purposes;
government agencies;
(p) Receive in trust legacies, gifts and manager of a partnership, corporation,

donations of real and personal properties association, or any juridical entity owning
of all kinds, to administer and dispose the and/or controlling such drug
same when necessary for the benefit of establishment, and who knowingly
government and private rehabilitation participates in, or consents to, tolerates,
centers subject to limitations, directions or abets the commission of the act of
and instructions from the donors, if any; violations as indicated in the preceding
paragraph, all without prejudice to the
(q) Issue guidelines as to the approval or criminal prosecution of the person
disapproval of applications for voluntary responsible for the said violation;
treatment, rehabilitation or confinement,
wherein it shall issue the necessary (u) Appoint such technical, administrative
guidelines, rules and regulations and other personnel as may be
pertaining to the application and its necessary for the effective
enforcement; implementation of this Act, subject to the
Civil Service Law and its rules and
(r) Formulate guidelines, in coordination regulations;
with other government agencies, the
importation, distribution, production, (v) Establish a regular and continuing
manufacture, compounding, prescription, consultation with concerned government
dispensing and sale of, and other lawful agencies and medical professional
acts in connection with any dangerous organizations to determine if balance
drug, controlled precursors and essential exists in policies, procedures, rules and
chemicals and other similar or analogous regulations on dangerous drugs and to
substances of such kind and in such provide recommendations on how the
quantity as it may deem necessary lawful use of dangerous drugs can be
according to the medical and research improved and facilitated; and
needs or requirements of the country
including diet pills containing ephedrine (w) Submit an annual and periodic
and other addictive chemicals and reports to the President, the Congress of
determine the quantity and/or quality of the Philippines and the Senate and
dangerous drugs and controlled House of Representatives committees
precursors and essential chemicals to be concerned as may be required from time
imported, manufactured and held in stock to time, and perform such other functions
at any given time by authorized importer, as may be authorized or required under
manufacturer or distributor of such drugs; existing laws and as directed by the
President himself/herself or as
(s) Develop the utilization of a controlled recommended by the congressional
delivery scheme in addressing the committees concerned.
transshipment of dangerous drugs into
and out of the country to neutralize Section 82. Creation of the Philippine Drug
transnational crime syndicates involved Enforcement Agency (PDEA). – To carry out the
in illegal trafficking of any dangerous provisions of this Act, the PDEA, which serves
drugs and/or controlled precursors and as the implementing arm of the Board, and shall
essential chemicals; be responsible for the efficient and effective law
enforcement of all the provisions on any
(t) Recommend the revocation of the dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and
professional license of any practitioner essential chemical as provided in this Act.
who is an owner, co-owner, lessee, or in
the employ of the drug establishment, or
The PDEA shall be headed by a Director Management; Logistics Management; and

General with the rank of Undersecretary, who Internal Affairs.
shall be responsible for the general
administration and management of the Agency. The PDEA shall establish and maintain regional
The Director General of the PDEA shall be offices in the different regions of the country
appointed by the President of the Philippines which shall be responsible for the
and shall perform such other duties that may be implementation of this Act and the policies,
assigned to him/her. He/she must possess programs, and projects of said agency in their
adequate knowledge, training and experience in respective regions.
the field of dangerous drugs, and in any of the
following fields: law enforcement, law, medicine, Section 84. Powers and Duties of the PDEA. –
criminology, psychology or social work. The PDEA shall:
The Director General of the PDEA shall be (a) Implement or cause the efficient and
assisted in the performance of his/her duties effective implementation of the national
and responsibilities by two (2) deputies director drug control strategy formulated by the
general with the rank of Assistant Secretary; Board thereby carrying out a national
one for Operations and the other one for drug campaign program which shall
Administration. The two (2) deputies director include drug law enforcement, control
general shall likewise be appointed by the and prevention campaign with the
President of the Philippines upon assistance of concerned government
recommendation of the Board. The two (2) agencies;
deputies director general shall possess the
same qualifications as those of the Director (b) Undertake the enforcement of the
General of the PDEA. The Director General and provisions of Article II of this Act relative
the two (2) deputies director general shall to the unlawful acts and penalties
receive the compensation and salaries as involving any dangerous drug and/or
prescribed by law. controlled precursor and essential
chemical and investigate all violators and
Section 83. Organization of the PDEA. – The other matters involved in the commission
present Secretariat of the National Drug Law of any crime relative to the use, abuse or
Enforcement and Prevention Coordinating trafficking of any dangerous drug and/or
Center as created by Executive Order No. 61 controlled precursor and essential
shall be accordingly modified and absorbed by chemical as provided for in this Act and
the PDEA. the provisions of Presidential Decree No.
1619;
The Director General of the PDEA shall be
responsible for the necessary changes in the (c) Administer oath,
organizational set-up which shall be submitted issue subpoena and subpoena duces
to the Board for approval. tecum relative to the conduct of
investigation involving the violations of
For purposes of carrying out its duties and this Act;
powers as provided for in the succeeding
Section of this Act, the PDEA shall have the (d) Arrest and apprehend as well as
following Services, namely: Intelligence and search all violators and seize or
Investigation; International Cooperation and confiscate, the effects or proceeds of the
Foreign Affairs; Preventive Education and crimes as provided by law and take
Community Involvement; Plans and Operations; custody thereof, for this purpose the
Compliance; Legal and Prosecution; prosecutors and enforcement agents are
Administrative and Human Resource; Financial
authorized to possess firearms, in from which dangerous drugs may be

accordance with existing laws; extracted;
(e) Take charge and have custody of all (k) Initiate and undertake the formation of
dangerous drugs and/or controlled a nationwide organization which shall
precursors and essential chemicals coordinate and supervise all activities
seized, confiscated or surrendered to any against drug abuse in every province,
national, provincial or local law city, municipality and barangay with the
enforcement agency, if no longer needed active and direct participation of all such
for purposes of evidence in court; local government units and
nongovernmental organizations,
(f) Establish forensic laboratories in each including the citizenry, subject to the
PNP office in every province and city in provisions of previously formulated
order to facilitate action on seize or programs of action against dangerous
confiscated drugs, thereby hastening its drugs;
destruction without delay;
(l) Establish and maintain a national drug
(g) Recommend to the DOJ the forfeiture intelligence system in cooperation with
of properties and other assets of persons law enforcement agencies, other
and/or corporations found to be violating government agencies/offices and local
the provisions of this Act and in government units that will assist in its
accordance with the pertinent provisions apprehension of big-time drug lords;
of the Anti-Money-Laundering Act of
2001; (m) Establish and maintain close
coordination, cooperation and linkages
(h) Prepare for prosecution or cause the with international drug control and
filing of appropriate criminal and civil administration agencies and
cases for violation of all laws on organizations, and implement the
dangerous drugs, controlled precursors applicable provisions of international
and essential chemicals, and other conventions and agreements related to
similar controlled substances, and assist, dangerous drugs to which the Philippines
support and coordinate with other is a signatory;
government agencies for the proper and
effective prosecution of the same; (n) Create and maintain an efficient
special enforcement unit to conduct an
(i) Monitor and if warranted by investigation, file charges and transmit
circumstances, in coordination with the evidence to the proper court, wherein
Philippine Postal Office and the Bureau members of the said unit shall possess
of Customs, inspect all air cargo suitable and adequate firearms for their
packages, parcels and mails in the protection in connection with the
central post office, which appear from the performance of their duties: Provided,
package and address itself to be a That no previous special permit for such
possible importation of dangerous drugs possession shall be required;
and/or controlled precursors and
essential chemicals, through on-line or (o) Require all government and private
cyber shops via the internet or hospitals, clinics, doctors, dentists and
cyberspace; other practitioners to submit a report to it,
in coordination with the Board, about all
(j) Conduct eradication programs to dangerous drugs and/or controlled
destroy wild or illegal growth of plants precursors and essential chemicals
which they have attended to for data and The Academy shall be headed by a
information purposes; Superintendent, with the rank of Director.
He/she shall be appointed by the PDEA Director
(p) Coordinate with the Board for the General.
facilitation of the issuance of necessary
guidelines, rules and regulations for the Section 86. Transfer, Absorption, and
proper implementation of this Act; Integration of All Operating Units on Illegal
Drugs into the PDEA and Transitory Provisions.
(q) Initiate and undertake a national – The Narcotics Group of the PNP, the
campaign for drug prevention and drug Narcotics Division of the NBI and the Customs
control programs, where it may enlist the Narcotics Interdiction Unit are hereby abolished;
assistance of any department, bureau, however they shall continue with the
office, agency or instrumentality of the performance of their task as detail service with
government, including government- the PDEA, subject to screening, until such time
owned and or –controlled corporations, in that the organizational structure of the Agency
the anti-illegal drugs drive, which may is fully operational and the number of graduates
include the use of their respective of the PDEA Academy is sufficient to do the task
personnel, facilities, and resources for a themselves: Provided, That such personnel who
more resolute detection and investigation are affected shall have the option of either being
of drug-related crimes and prosecution of integrated into the PDEA or remain with their
the drug traffickers; and original mother agencies and shall, thereafter,
be immediately reassigned to other units therein
(r) Submit an annual and periodic reports by the head of such agencies. Such personnel
to the Board as may be required from who are transferred, absorbed and integrated in
time to time, and perform such other the PDEA shall be extended appointments to
functions as may be authorized or positions similar in rank, salary, and other
required under existing laws and as emoluments and privileges granted to their
directed by the President himself/herself respective positions in their original mother
or as recommended by the congressional agencies.
committees concerned.
The transfer, absorption and integration of the
Section 85. The PDEA Academy. – Upon the different offices and units provided for in this
approval of the Board, the PDEA Academy shall Section shall take effect within eighteen (18)
be established either in Baguio or Tagaytay months from the effectivity of this Act: Provided,
City, and in such other places as may be That personnel absorbed and on detail service
necessary. The PDEA Academy shall be shall be given until five (5) years to finally decide
responsible in the recruitment and training of all to join the PDEA.
PDEA agents and personnel. The Board shall
provide for the qualifications and requirements Nothing in this Act shall mean a diminution of
of its recruits who must be at least twenty-one the investigative powers of the NBI and the PNP
(21) years old, of proven integrity and honesty on all other crimes as provided for in their
and a Baccalaureate degree holder. respective organic laws: Provided, however,
That when the investigation being conducted by
The graduates of the Academy shall later the NBI, PNP or any ad hoc anti-drug task force
comprise the operating units of the PDEA after is found to be a violation of any of the provisions
the termination of the transition period of five (5) of this Act, the PDEA shall be the lead agency.
years during which all the intelligence network The NBI, PNP or any of the task force shall
and standard operating procedures of the PDEA immediately transfer the same to the
has been set up and operationalized. PDEA: Provided, further, That the NBI, PNP and
the Bureau of Customs shall maintain close
coordination with the PDEA on all drug related (PAGCOR) in the amount of Five million pesos
matters. (P5,000,000.00) a month shall be set aside for
the purpose of establishing adequate drug
ARTICLE X rehabilitation centers in the country and also for
the maintenance and operations of such
Appropriations, Management of Funds and centers: Provided, That the said amount shall be
Annual Report taken from the fifty percent (50%) share of the
National Government in the income of
Section 87. Appropriations. – The amount PAGCOR: Provided, further, That the said
necessary for the operation of the Board and the amount shall automatically be remitted by
PDEA shall be charged against the current PAGCOR to the Board. The amount shall, in
year's appropriations of the Board, the National turn, be disbursed by the Dangerous Drugs
Drug Law Enforcement and Prevention Board, subject to the rules and regulations of the
Coordinating Center, the Narcotics Group of the Commission on Audit (COA).
PNP, the Narcotics Division of the NBI and other
drug abuse units of the different law The fund may be augmented by grants,
enforcement agencies integrated into the PDEA donations, and endowment from various
in order to carry out the provisions of this Act. sources, domestic or foreign, for purposes
Thereafter, such sums as may be necessary for related to their functions, subject to the existing
the continued implementation of this Act shall be guidelines set by the government.
included in the annual General Appropriations
Act. Section 88. Management of Funds Under this
Act; Annual Report by the Board and the
All receipts derived from fines, fees and other PDEA. – The Board shall manage the funds as
income authorized and imposed in this Act, it may deem proper for the attainment of the
including ten percent (10%) of all unclaimed and objectives of this Act. In addition to the periodic
forfeited sweepstakes and lotto prizes but not reports as may be required under this Act, the
less than twelve million pesos (P12,000,000.00) Chairman of the Board shall submit to the
per year from the Philippine Charity President of the Philippines and to the presiding
Sweepstakes Office (PCSO), are hereby officers of both houses of Congress, within
constituted as a special account in the general fifteen (15) days from the opening of the regular
fund for the implementation of this session, an annual report on the dangerous
Act: Provided, That no amount shall be drugs situation in the country which shall include
disbursed to cover the operating expenses of detailed account of the programs and projects
the Board and other concerned undertaken, statistics on crimes related to
agencies: Provided, further, That at least fifty dangerous drugs, expenses incurred pursuant
percent (50%) of all the funds shall be reserved to the provisions of this Act, recommended
for assistance to government-owned and/or remedial legislation, if needed, and such other
operated rehabilitation centers. relevant facts as it may deem proper to cite.
The fines shall be remitted to the Board by the Section 89. Auditing the Accounts and
court imposing such fines within thirty (30) days Expenses of the Board and the PDEA. – All
from the finality of its decisions or orders. The accounts and expenses of the Board and the
unclaimed and forfeited prizes shall be turned PDEA shall be audited by the COA or its duly
over to the Board by the PCSO within thirty (30) authorized representative.
days after these are collected and declared
forfeited. ARTICLE XI
A portion of the funds generated by the Jurisdiction Over Dangerous Drugs Cases
Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation
Section 90. Jurisdiction. – The Supreme Court to twenty (20) years and a fine of not less than
shall designate special courts from among the Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), in
existing Regional Trial Courts in each judicial addition to the administrative liability he/she
region to exclusively try and hear cases may be meted out by his/her immediate superior
involving violations of this Act. The number of and/or appropriate body.
courts designated in each judicial region shall
be based on the population and the number of The immediate superior of the member of the
cases pending in their respective jurisdiction. law enforcement agency or any other
government employee mentioned in the
The DOJ shall designate special prosecutors to preceding paragraph shall be penalized with
exclusively handle cases involving violations of imprisonment of not less than two (2) months
this Act. and one (1) day but not more than six (6) years
and a fine of not less than Ten thousand pesos
The preliminary investigation of cases filed (P10,000.00) but not more than Fifty thousand
under this Act shall be terminated within a pesos (P50,000.00) and in addition, perpetual
period of thirty (30) days from the date of their absolute disqualification from public office if
filing. despite due notice to them and to the witness
concerned, the former does not exert
When the preliminary investigation is conducted reasonable effort to present the latter to the
by a public prosecutor and a probable cause is court.
established, the corresponding information shall
be filed in court within twenty-four (24) hours The member of the law enforcement agency or
from the termination of the investigation. If the any other government employee mentioned in
preliminary investigation is conducted by a the preceding paragraphs shall not be
judge and a probable cause is found to exist, the transferred or re-assigned to any other
corresponding information shall be filed by the government office located in another territorial
proper prosecutor within forty-eight (48) hours jurisdiction during the pendency of the case in
from the date of receipt of the records of the court. However, the concerned member of the
case. law enforcement agency or government
employee may be transferred or re-assigned for
Trial of the case under this Section shall be compelling reasons: Provided, That his/her
finished by the court not later than sixty (60) immediate superior shall notify the court where
days from the date of the filing of the the case is pending of the order to transfer or re-
information. Decision on said cases shall be assign, within twenty-four (24) hours from its
rendered within a period of fifteen (15) days approval; Provided, further, That his/her
from the date of submission of the case for immediate superior shall be penalized with
resolution. imprisonment of not less than two (2) months
and one (1) day but not more than six (6) years
Section 91. Responsibility and Liability of Law and a fine of not less than Ten thousand pesos
Enforcement Agencies and other Government (P10,000.00) but not more than Fifty thousand
Officials and Employees in Testifying as pesos (P50,000.00) and in addition, perpetual
Prosecution Witnesses in Dangerous Drugs absolute disqualification from public office,
Cases. – Any member of law enforcement should he/she fail to notify the court of such
agencies or any other government official and order to transfer or re-assign.
employee who, after due notice, fails or refuses
intentionally or negligently, to appear as a Prosecution and punishment under this Section
witness for the prosecution in any proceedings, shall be without prejudice to any liability for
involving violations of this Act, without any valid violation of any existing law.
reason, shall be punished with imprisonment of
not less than twelve (12) years and one (1) day
Section 92. Delay and Bungling in the (d) Its history and current pattern of
Prosecution of Drug Cases. – Any government abuse;
officer or employee tasked with the prosecution
of drug-related cases under this act, who, (e) The scope, duration, and significance
through patent laxity, inexcusable neglect, of abuse;
unreasonable delay or deliberately causes the
unsuccessful prosecution and/or dismissal of (f) Risk to public health; and
the said drug cases, shall suffer the penalty of
imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years (g) Whether the substance is an
and one (1) day to twenty (20) years without immediate precursor of a substance
prejudice to his/her prosecution under the already controlled under this Act.
pertinent provisions of the Revised Penal Code.
The Board shall also take into accord the
Section 93. Reclassification, Addition or obligations and commitments to international
Removal of Any Drug from the List of treaties, conventions and agreements to which
Dangerous Drugs. – The Board shall have the the Philippines is a signatory.
power to reclassify, add to or remove from the
list of dangerous drugs. Proceedings to The Dangerous Drugs Board shall give notice to
reclassify, add, or remove a drug or other the general public of the public hearing of the
substance may be initiated by the PDEA, the reclassification, addition to or removal from the
DOH, or by petition from any interested party, list of any drug by publishing such notice in any
including the manufacturer of a drug, a medical newspaper of general circulation once a week
society or association, a pharmacy association, for two (2) weeks.
a public interest group concerned with drug
abuse, a national or local government agency, The effect of such reclassification, addition or
or an individual citizen. When a petition is removal shall be as follows:
received by the Board, it shall immediately begin
its own investigation of the drug. The PDEA also (a) In case a dangerous drug is
may begin an investigation of a drug at any time reclassified as precursors and essential
based upon the information received from law chemicals, the penalties for the violations
enforcement laboratories, national and local law of this Act involving the two latter
enforcement and regulatory agencies, or other categories of drugs shall, in case of
sources of information. conviction, be imposed in all pending
criminal prosecutions;
The Board after notice and hearing shall
consider the following factors with respect to (b) In case a precursors and essential
each substance proposed to be reclassified, chemicals is reclassified as dangerous
added or removed from control: drug, the penalties for violations of the
Act involving precursors and essential
(a) Its actual or relative potential for chemicals shall, in case of conviction, be
abuse; imposed in all pending criminal
prosecutions;
(b) Scientific evidence of its
pharmacological effect if known; (c) In case of the addition of a new drug
to the list of dangerous drugs and
(c) The state of current scientific precursors and essential chemicals, no
knowledge regarding the drug or other criminal liability involving the same under
substance; this Act shall arise until after the lapse of
fifteen (15) days from the last publication
of such notice;
(d) In case of removal of a drug from the The Committee shall be headed by the
list of dangerous drugs and precursors respective Chairpersons of the Senate
and essential chemicals, all persons Committee on Public Order and Illegal Drugs
convicted and/or detained for the use and the House of Representatives Committee
and/or possession of such a drug shall be on Dangerous Drugs.
automatically released and all pending
criminal prosecution involving such a Section 96. Powers and Functions of the
drug under this Act shall forthwith be Oversight Committee. – The Oversight
dismissed; and Committee on Dangerous Drugs shall, in aid of
legislation, perform the following functions,
(e) The Board shall, within five (5) days among others:
from the date of its promulgation submit
to Congress a detailed reclassification, (a) To set the guidelines and overall
addition, or removal of any drug from the framework to monitor and ensure the
list of dangerous drugs. proper implementation of this Act;
ARTICLE XII (b) To ensure transparency and require

the submission of reports from
Implementing Rules and Regulations government agencies concerned on the
conduct of programs, projects and
Section 94. Implementing Rules and policies relating to the implementation of
Regulations. – The present Board in this act;
consultation with the DOH, DILG, DOJ, DepEd,
DSWD, DOLE, PNP, NBI, PAGCOR and the (c) To approve the budget for the
PCSO and all other concerned government programs of the Oversight Committee on
agencies shall promulgate within sixty (60) days Dangerous Drugs and all disbursements
the Implementing Rules and Regulations that therefrom, including compensation of all
shall be necessary to implement the provisions personnel;
of this Act.
(d) To submit periodic reports to the
ARTICLE XIII President of the Philippines and
Congress on the implementation of the
Final Provisions provisions of this Act;
Section 95. Congressional Oversight (e) To determine inherent weaknesses in

Committee. – There is hereby created a the law and recommend the necessary
Congressional Oversight Committee composed remedial legislation or executive
of seven (7) Members from the Senate and measures; and
seven (7) Members from the House of
Representatives. The Members from the Senate (f) To perform such other duties,
shall be appointed by the Senate President functions and responsibilities as may be
based on the proportional representation of the necessary to effectively attain the
parties or coalitions therein with at least two (2) objectives of this Act.
Senators representing the Minority. The
Members from the House of Representatives Section 97. Adoption of Committee Rules and
shall be appointed by the Speaker, also based Regulations, and Funding. – The Oversight
on proportional representation of the parties or Committee on Dangerous Drugs shall adopt its
coalitions therein with at least two (2) Members internal rules of procedure, conduct hearings
representing the Minority. and receive testimonies, reports, and technical
advice, invite or summon by subpoena ad
testificandum any public official, private citizen, the provisions of this Act, are hereby repealed
or any other person to testify before it, or require or modified accordingly.
any person by subpoena duces
tecum documents or other materials as it may Section 101. Amending Clause. – Republic Act
require consistent with the provisions of this Act. No. 7659 is hereby amended accordingly.
The Oversight Committee on Dangerous Drugs Section 102. Effectivity. – This Act shall take
shall be assisted by a secretariat to be effect fifteen (15) days upon its publication in at
composed by personnel who may be seconded least two (2) national newspapers of general
from the Senate and the House of circulation.
Representatives and may retain consultants.
To carry out the powers and functions of the

Oversight Committee on Dangerous Drugs, the
initial sum of Twenty-five million pesos
(P25,000,000.00) shall be charged against the
current appropriations of the Senate.
Thereafter, such amount necessary for its
continued operations shall be included in the
annual General Appropriations Act.
The Oversight Committee on Dangerous Drugs

shall exist for a period of ten (10) years from the
effectivity of this Act and may be extended by a
joint concurrent resolution.
Section 98. Limited Applicability of the Revised

Penal Code. – Notwithstanding any law, rule or
regulation to the contrary, the provisions of the
Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3814), as
amended, shall not apply to the provisions of
this Act, except in the case of minor offenders.
Where the offender is a minor, the penalty for
acts punishable by life imprisonment to death
provided herein shall be reclusion perpetua to
death.
Section 99. Separability Clause. – If for any

reason any section or provision of this Act, or
any portion thereof, or the application of such
section, provision or portion thereof to any
person, group or circumstance is declared
invalid or unconstitutional, the remainder of this
Act shall not be affected by such declaration and
shall remain in force and effect.
Section 100. Repealing Clause. – Republic Act

No. 6425, as amended, is hereby repealed and
all other laws, administrative orders, rules and
regulations, or parts thereof inconsistent with
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7659 Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 20 of

this Act to the contrary, the maximum of the
AN ACT TO IMPOSE THE DEATH PENALTY penalty shall be imposed in every case where a
ON CERTAIN HEINOUS CRIMES, AMENDING prohibited drug is administered, delivered or
FOR THAT PURPOSE THE REVISED PENAL sold to a minor who is allowed to use the same
LAWS, AS AMENDED, OTHER SPECIAL in such place.
PENAL LAWS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Should a prohibited drug be the proximate
Section 13. Sections 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9, of cause of the death of a person using the same
Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, in such den, dive or resort, the maximum
known as the Dangerous Drugs Act 1972, are penalty herein provided shall be imposed on the
hereby amended to read as follows: maintainer notwithstanding the provisions of
Section 20 of this Act to the contrary.
"Sec. 3. Importation of Prohibited Drugs. - The
penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine "Sec. 7. Manufacture of Prohibited Drug. - The
ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and fine
ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to
person who, unless authorized by law, shall ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any
import or bring into the Philippines any person who, unless authorized by law, shall
prohibited drug. engage in the manufacture of any prohibited
drug.
"Sec. 4. Sale, Administration, Delivery,
Distribution and Transportation of Prohibited "Sec. 8. Possession or Use of Prohibited Drugs.
Drugs. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua to - The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and
death and a fine from five hundred thousand a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos
pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any
upon any person who, unless authorized by law, person who, unless authorized by law, shall
shall sell, administer, deliver, give away to possess or use any prohibited drug subject to
another, distribute, dispatch in transit or the provisions of Section 20 hereof.
transport any prohibited drug, or shall act as a
broker in any of such transactions. "Sec. 9. Cultivation of Plants which are Sources
of Prohibited Drugs. - The penalty of reclusion
Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 20 of perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five
this Act to the contrary, if the victim of the hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos
offense is a minor, or should a prohibited drug shall be imposed upon any person who shall
involved in any offense under this Section be the plant, cultivate or culture any medium Indian
proximate cause of the death of a victim thereof, hemp, opium poppy (papaver somniferum), or
the maximum penalty herein provided shall be any other plant which is or may hereafter be
imposed. classified as dangerous drug or from which any
dangerous drug may be manufactured or
"Sec. 5. Maintenance of a Den, Dive or Resort derived.
for Prohibited Drug Users. - The penalty of
reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging The land or portions hereof, and/or
from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million greenhouses on which any of said plants is
pesos shall be imposed upon any person or cultivated or cultured shall be confiscated and
group of persons who shall maintain a den, dive escheated to the State, unless the owner
or resort where any prohibited drug is used in thereof can prove that he did not know such
any form or where such prohibited drugs in cultivation or culture despite the exercise of due
quantities specified in Section 20, Paragraph 1 diligence on his part.
of this Act are found.
If the land involved in is part of the public from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million
domain, the maximum of the penalties herein pesos shall be imposed upon any person or
provided shall be imposed upon the offender." group of persons who shall maintain a den, dive
or resort where any regulated drugs is used in
Section 14. Sections 14, 14-A, and 15 of Article any form, or where such regulated drugs in
III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, quantities specified in Section 20, paragraph 1
known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, are of this Act are found.
hereby amended to read as follows:
Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 20 of
"Sec. 14. Importation of Regulated Drugs. - The this Act to the contrary, the maximum penalty
penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine herein provided shall be imposed in every case
ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to where a regulated drug is administered,
ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any delivered or sold to a minor who is allowed to
person who, unless authorized by law, shall use the same in such place.
import or bring any regulated drug in the
Philippines. Should a regulated drug be the proximate cause
of the death of a person using the same in such
"Sec. 14-A. Manufacture of Regulated Drugs. - den, dive or resort, the maximum penalty herein
The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and provided shall be imposed on the maintainer
a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos notwithstanding the provisions of Section 20 of
to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any this Act to the contrary."
person who, unless authorized by law, shall
engage in the manufacture of any regulated Section 16. Section 16 of Article III of Republic
drug. Act No. 6425, as amended, known as the
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, is amended to
"Sec. 15. Sale, Administration, Dispensation, read as follows:
Delivery, Transportation and Distribution of
Regulated Drugs. - The penalty of reclusion "Sec. 16. Possession or Use of Regulated
perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five Drugs. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua to
hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos death and a fine ranging from five hundred
shall be imposed upon any person who, unless thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be
authorized by law, shall sell, dispense, deliver, imposed upon any person who shall possess or
transport or distribute any regulated drug. use any regulated drug without the
corresponding license or prescription, subject to
Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 20 of the provisions of Section 20 hereof."
this Act to the contrary, if the victim of the
offense is a minor, or should a regulated drug Section 17. Section 20, Article IV of Republic
involved in any offense under this Section be the Act No. 6425, as amended, known as the
proximate cause of the death of a victim thereof, Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, is hereby
the maximum penalty herein provided shall be amended to read as follows:
imposed."
Sec. 20. Application of Penalties, Confiscation
Section 15. There shall be incorporated after and Forfeiture of the Proceeds or Instruments of
Section 15 of Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, the Crime. - The penalties for offenses under
as amended, known as the Dangerous Drug Act Section 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 of Article II and Sections
of 1972, a new section to read as follows: 14, 14-A, 15 and 16 of Article III of this Act shall
be applied if the dangerous drugs involved is in
"Sec. 15-a. Maintenance of a den, dive or resort any of the following quantities :
for regulated drug users. - The penalty of
reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging 1. 40 grams or more of opium;
2. 40 grams or more of morphine; Any apprehending or arresting officer who

misappropriates or misapplies or fails to account
3. 200 grams or more of shabu or for seized or confiscated dangerous drugs or
methylamphetamine hydrochloride; plant-sources of dangerous drugs or proceeds
or instruments of the crime as are herein defined
4. 40 grams or more of heroin; shall after conviction be punished by the penalty
of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging
5. 750 grams or more of indian hemp or from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million
marijuana; pesos."
6. 50 grams or more of marijuana resin or Section 18. There shall be incorporated after
marijuana resin oil; Section 20 of Republic Act No. 6425, as
amended, known as the Dangerous Drugs Act
7. 40 grams or more of cocaine or cocaine of 1972, a new section to read as follows:
hydrochloride; or
"Sec. 20-A. Plea-bargaining Provisions. - Any
8. In the case of other dangerous drugs, the person charged under any provision of this Act
quantity of which is far beyond therapeutic where the imposable penalty is reclusion
requirements, as determined and promulgated perpetua to death shall not be allowed to avail
by the Dangerous Drugs Board, after public of the provision on plea bargaining."
consultations/hearings conducted for the
purpose. Section 19. Section 24 of Republic Act No.
6425, as amended, known as the Dangerous
Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than Drugs Act of 1972, is hereby amended to read
the foregoing quantities, the penalty shall range as follows :
from prision correccional to reclusion perpetua
depending upon the quantity. "Sec. 24. Penalties for Government Official and
Employees and Officers and Members of Police
Every penalty imposed for the unlawful Agencies and the Armed Forces, 'Planting' of
importation, sale, administration, delivery, Evidence. - The maximum penalties provided
transportation or manufacture of dangerous for Section 3, 4(1), 5(1), 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 13
drugs, the cultivation of plants which are of Article II and Sections 14, 14-A, 15(1), 16 and
sources of dangerous drugs and the possession 19 of Article III shall be imposed, if those found
of any opium pipe and other paraphernalia for guilty of any of the said offenses are
dangerous drugs shall carry with it the government officials, employees or officers,
confiscation and forfeiture, in favor of the including members of police agencies and the
Government, of all the proceeds of the crime armed forces.
including but not limited to money and other
obtained thereby and the instruments or tools Any such above government official, employee
with which it was committed, unless they are the or officer who is found guilty of "planting" any
property of a third person not liable for the dangerous drugs punished in Sections 3, 4, 7,
offense, but those which are not of lawful 8, 9 and 13 of Article II and Sections 14, 14-A,
commerce shall be ordered destroyed without 15 and 16 of Article III of this Act in the person
delay. Dangerous drugs and plant sources of or in the immediate vicinity of another as
such drugs as well as the proceeds or evidence to implicate the latter, shall suffer the
instruments of the crime so confiscated and same penalty as therein provided."
forfeited in favor of the Government shall be
turned over to the Board for proper disposal Approved: December 13, 1993
without delay.
[REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10640] at the nearest police station or at the nearest
office of the apprehending officer/team,
AN ACT TO FURTHER STRENGTHEN THE whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless
ANTI-DRUG CAMPAIGN OF THE seizures: Provided, finally, That noncompliance
GOVERNMENT, AMENDING FOR THE of these requirements under justifiable grounds,
PURPOSE SECTION 21 OF REPUBLIC ACT as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value
NO. 9165, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE of the seized items are properly preserved by
“COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS the apprehending officer/team, shall not render
ACT OF 2002″ void and invalid such seizures and custody over
said items.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the Philippines in Congress “x x x
assembled:
“(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory
SECTION 1. Section 21 of Republic Act No. examination results, which shall be done by the
9165, otherwise known as the “Comprehensive forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002″, is hereby immediately upon the receipt of the subject
amended to read as follows: item/s: Provided, That when the volume of
dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous
“SEC. 21. Custody and Disposition of drugs, and controlled precursors and essential
Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered chemicals does not allow the completion of
Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous testing within the time frame, a partial laboratory
Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential examination report shall be provisionally issued
Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or stating therein the quantities of dangerous drugs
Laboratory Equipment. – The PDEA shall take still to be examined by the forensic laboratory:
charge and have custody of all dangerous Provided, however, That a final certification
drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, shall be issued immediately upon completion of
controlled precursors and essential chemicals, the said examination and certification;
as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or
laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized “x x x.”
and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the
following manner: SEC. 2. Implementing Rules and Regulations
(IRR). – To implement effectively the provisions
“(1) The apprehending team having initial of Section 21, the Philippine Drug Enforcement
custody and control of the dangerous drugs, Agency (PDEA) shall issue the necessary
controlled precursors and essential chemicals, guidelines on the IRR for the purpose in
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory consultation with the Department of Justice (DO
equipment shall, immediately after seizure and J) and relevant sectors to curb increasing drug
confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the cases.
seized items and photograph the same in the
presence of the accused or the person/s from SEC. 3. Separability Clause. – If any provision
whom such items were confiscated and/or or part hereof is held invalid or unconstitutional,
seized, or his/her representative or counsel, the remainder of the law or the provision not
with an elected public official and a otherwise affected shall remain valid and
representative of the National Prosecution subsisting.
Service or the media who shall be required to
sign the copies of the inventory and be given a SEC. 4. Repealing Clause. – All laws,
copy thereof: Provided, That the physical presidential decrees or issuances, executive
inventory and photograph shall be conducted at orders, letters of instruction, administrative
the place where the search warrant is served; or orders, rules and regulations contrary to or
inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are

hereby repealed, modified or amended
accordingly.
SEC. 5. Effectivity. – This Act shall take effect

fifteen (15) days after its complete publication in
at least two (2) newspapers of general
circulation.
G.R. No. 88017 January 21, 1991 The antecedent facts of the case as found by
the trial court are as follows:
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-
appellee, In July 1987, the Special Operations Group, a
vs. unit of the Criminal Investigation Service (CIS)
LO HO WING alias PETER LO, LIM CHENG of the Philippine Constabulary (PC), received a
HUAT alias ANTONIO LIM and REYNALDO tip from one of its informers about an organized
TIA y SANTIAGO, defendants. LO HO group engaged in the importation of illegal
WING alias PETER LO, defendant-appellant. drugs, smuggling of contraband goods, and
gunrunning. After an evaluation of the
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee. information thus received, a project codenamed
Segundo M. Gloria, Jr. for defendant-appellant. "OPLAN SHARON 887" was created in order to
bust the suspected syndicate.
GANCAYCO, J.:
As part of the operations, the recruitment of
This case involves the unlawful transport of confidential men and "deep penetration agents'
metamphetamine, a regulated drug under was carried out to infiltrate the crime syndicate.
Republic Act No. 6425, as amended. One of its One of those recruited was the discharged
derivatives is metamphetamine hydrochloride, accused, Reynaldo Tia (hereinafter referred to
notoriously known in street parlance as "shabu" as Tia).
or "poor man's cocaine."
Tia was introduced to his co-accused Lim
Appellant Peter Lo, together with co-accused Cheng Huat (hereinafter referred to as Lim) by
Lim Cheng Huat alias Antonio Lim and another confidential agent named George on
Reynaldo Tia, were charged with a violation of August 3, 1987. Lim expressed a desire to hire
Section 15, Article III of the aforementioned a male travelling companion for his business
statute otherwise known as the Dangerous nips abroad. Tia offered his services and was
Drugs Act of 1972, before Branch 114 of the hired.
Regional Trial Court of Pasay City. Only
appellant and co-accused Lim Cheng Huat were Lim and Tia met anew on several occasions to
convicted. They were sentenced to suffer life make arrangements for a trip to China. In the
imprisonment, to pay a fine of P25,000.00 each, course of those meetings, Tia was introduced to
and to pay the costs. Their co-accused Peter Lo (hereinafter referred to as appellant),
Reynaldo Tia was discharged as a state whom Tia found out to be the person he was to
witness. The pertinent portion of the information accompany to China in lieu of Lim.
reads as follows:
As a "deep penetration agent," Tia regularly
That on or about the 6th day of October, 1987, submitted reports of his undercover activities on
in Pasay City, Metro Manila, and within the the suspected criminal syndicate. Meanwhile,
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above- the officer-in-charge of OPLAN SHARON 887,
named accused, conspiring and confederating Captain Luisito Palmera, filed with his superiors
together and mutually helping one another, the reports submitted to him, and officially
without authority of law, did then and there informed the Dangerous Drugs Board of Tia's
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously deliver, activities.
dispatch or transport 56 teabags of
Metamphetamine, a regulated drug. On October 4, 1987, appellant and Tia left for
Hongkong on board a Philippine Airlines flight.
Contrary to law.1 Before they departed, Tia was able to telephone
Captain Palmera to inform him of their expected
date of return to the Philippines as declared in
his round-trip plane ticket-October 6, 1987 at on the tip given by Tia. On the expected date of
two o'clock in the afternoon. arrival, the team proceeded to the NAIA.
Captain Palmera notified the Narcotics
The day after they arrived in Hongkong, Tia and Command (NARCOM) Detachment at the
appellant boarded a train bound for Guangzhou, airport for coordination. After a briefing, the
in the People's Republic of China. Upon arriving operatives were ordered to take strategic
there, they checked in at a hotel, and rested for positions around the arrival area. Two
a few hours. The pair thereafter went to a local operatives stationed just outside the arrival area
store where appellant purchased six (6) tin cans were the first ones to spot the suspects
of tea. Tia saw the paper tea bags when the emerging therefrom. Word was passed on to the
cans were opened for examination during the other members of the team that the suspects
purchase. Afterwards, they returned to the hotel. were in sight. Appellant was pulling along his
Appellant kept the cans of tea in his hotel room. red traveling bag while Tia was carrying a
That evening, Tia went to appellant's room to shoulder bag. The operatives also spotted Lim
talk to him. Upon entering, he saw two other meeting their quarry.
men with appellant. One was fixing the tea bags,
while the other was burning substance on a Upon seeing appellant and Tia leave the airport,
piece of aluminum foil using a cigarette lighter. the operatives who first spotted them followed
Appellant joined the second man and sniffed the them. Along Imelda Avenue, the car of the
smoke emitted by the burning substance. Tia operatives overtook the taxicab ridden by
asked the latter what they would be bringing appellant and Tia and cut into its path forcing the
back to the Philippines. He was informed that taxi driver to stop his vehicle. Meanwhile, the
their cargo consisted of Chinese drugs. Tia other taxicab carrying Lim sped away in an
stayed in the room for about twenty minutes attempt to escape. The operatives disembarked
before going back to his room to sleep. from their car, approached the taxicab, and
asked the driver to open the baggage
The next day, October 6,1987, the two returned compartment. Three pieces of luggage were
to Manila via a China Airlines flight. Appellant retrieved from the back compartment of the
had with him his red traveling bag with wheels. vehicle. The operatives requested from the
Before departing from Guangzhou however, suspects permission to search their luggage. A
customs examiners inspected their luggage. tin can of tea was taken out of the red traveling
The tin cans of tea were brought out from the bag owned by appellant. Sgt. Roberto
traveling bag of appellant. The contents of the Cayabyab, one of the operatives, pried the lid
cans were not closely examined, and appellant open, pulled out a paper tea bag from the can
was cleared along with Tia. and pressed it in the middle to feel its contents.
Some crystalline white powder resembling
The plane landed at the Ninoy Aquino crushed alum came out of the bag. The
International Airport (NAIA), then named Manila sergeant then opened the tea bag and
International Airport, on schedule. Lim met the examined its contents more closely. Suspecting
newly-arrived pair at the arrival area. Lim talked the crystalline powder to be a dangerous drug,
to appellant, while Tia, upon being instructed, he had the three traveling bags opened for
looked after their luggage. After Lim and inspection. From the red traveling bag, a total of
appellant finished their conversation, the latter six (6) tin cans were found, including the one
hailed a taxicab. Appellant and Tia boarded the previously opened. Nothing else of
taxicab after putting their luggage inside the consequence was recovered from the other
back compartment of the vehicle. Lim followed bags. Tia and appellant were taken to the CIS
in another taxi cab. Headquarters in Quezon City for questioning.
Meanwhile, a team composed of six operatives Meanwhile, the second taxicab was eventually
headed by Captain Palmera was formed to act overtaken by two other operatives on Retiro
Street, Quezon City. Lim was likewise We affirm.

apprehended and brought to the CIS
Headquarters for interrogation. Anent the first assignment of error, appellant
contends that the warrantless search and
During the investigation of the case, the six tin seizure made against the accused is illegal for
cans recovered from the traveling bag of being violative of Section 2, Article III of the
appellant were opened and examined. They Constitution. He reasons that the PC-CIS
contained a total of fifty-six (56) paper tea bags officers concerned could very well have
with white crystalline powder inside instead of procured a search warrant since they had been
tea leaves. informed of the date and time of a arrival of the
accused at the NAIA well ahead of time,
The tea bag opened by Sgt. Cayabyab during specifically two (2) days in advance. The fact
the search and seizure was sent to the PC-INP that the search and seizure in question were
Crime Laboratory for preliminary examination. made on a moving vehicle, appellant argues,
Tests conducted on a sample of the crystalline does not automatically make the warrantless
powder inside the tea bag yielded a positive search herein fall within the coverage of the
result that the specimen submitted was well-known exception to the rule of the necessity
metamphetamine. Samples from each of the of a valid warrant to effect a search because, as
fifty-six (56) tea bags were similarly tested. The aforementioned, the anti-narcotics agents had
tests were also positive for metamphetamine. both time and opportunity to secure a search
Hence, the three suspects were indicted. warrant.
In rendering a judgment of conviction, the trial The contentions are without merit. As correctly
court gave full credence to the testimonies of the averred by appellee, that search and seizure
government anti-narcotics operatives, to whom must be supported by a valid warrant is not an
the said court applied the well-settled absolute rule. There are at least three (3) well-
presumption of regularity in the performance of recognized exceptions thereto. As set forth in
official duties. the case of Manipon, Jr. vs.
3
Sandiganbayan, these are: [1] a search
Appellant now assigns three errors alleged to incidental to an arrest, [2] a search of a moving
have been committed by the trial court, namely: vehicle, and [3] seizure of evidence in plain view
(emphasis supplied). The circumstances of the
I. case clearly show that the search in question
was made as regards a moving vehicle.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT Therefore, a valid warrant was not necessary to
DECLARING THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE ON effect the search on appellant and his co-
THE ACCUSED AS ILLEGAL. accused.
II. In this connection, We cite with approval the

averment of the Solicitor General, as contained
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE in the appellee's brief, that the rules governing
ACCUSED GUILTY OF DELIVERING, search and seizure have over the years been
DISPATCHING OR TRANSPORTING steadily liberalized whenever a moving vehicle
METAMPHETAMINE, A REGULATED DRUG. is the object of the search on the basis of
practicality. This is so considering that before a
III. warrant could be obtained, the place, things and
persons to be searched must be described to
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DISCHARGING the satisfaction of the issuing judge—a
REYNALDO TIA TO TESTIFY FOR THE requirement which borders on the impossible in
PROSECUTION.2 the case of smuggling effected by the use of a
moving vehicle that can transport contraband being absent under the facts of the case. It is
from one place to another with impunity. 4 also argued that "dispatching' cannot apply
either since appellant never sent off or disposed
We might add that a warrantless search of a of drugs. As for "transporting," appellant
moving vehicle is justified on the ground that "it contends that he cannot also be held liable
is not practicable to secure a warrant because therefor because the act of transporting
the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the necessarily requires a point of destination,
locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must which again is non- existent under the given
be sought."5 facts.
In the instant case, it was firmly established from The contentions are futile attempts to strain the
the factual findings of the trial court that the meaning of the operative acts of which appellant
authorities had reasonable ground to believe and his co-accused were charged in relation to
that appellant would attempt to bring in the facts of the case. There is no doubt that law
contraband and transport it within the country. enforcers caught appellant and his co-
The belief was based on intelligence reports accused in flagrante delicto of transporting a
gathered from surveillance activities on the prohibited drug. The term "transport" is defined
suspected syndicate, of which appellant was as "to carry or convey from one place to
touted to be a member. Aside from this, they another."6 The operative words in the definition
were also certain as to the expected date and are "to carry or convey." The fact that there is
time of arrival of the accused from China. But actual conveyance suffices to support a finding
such knowledge was clearly insufficient to that the act of transporting was committed. It is
enable them to fulfill the requirements for the immaterial whether or not the place of
issuance of a search warrant. Still and all, the destination is reached. Furthermore, the
important thing is that there was probable cause argument of appellant gives rise to the illogical
to conduct the warrantless search, which must conclusion that he and his co- accused did not
still be present in such a case. intend to bring the metamphetamine
anywhere, i.e. they had no place of destination.
The second assignment of error is likewise
lacking in merit. Appellant was charged and The situation in the instant case is one where
convicted under Section 15, Article III of the transport of a prohibited drug was
Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, which interrupted by the search and arrest of the
reads: accused. Interruption necessarily infers that an
act had already been commenced. Otherwise,
The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a there would be nothing to interrupt.
fine ranging from twenty thousand to thirty
thousand pesos shall be imposed upon any Therefore, considering the foregoing, since the
person who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, information included the acts of delivery,
dispose, deliver, transport or distribute any dispatch or transport, proof beyond reasonable
regulated drug (emphasis supplied). doubt of the commission of any of the acts so
included is sufficient for conviction under
The information charged the accused of Section 15, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425,
delivering, transporting or dispatching fifty-six as amended.
(56) tea bags containing metamphetamine, a
regulated drug. The conjunction "or' was used, Moreover, the act of transporting a prohibited
thereby implying that the accused were being drug is a malum prohibitum because it is
charged of the three specified acts in the punished as an offense under a special law. It is
alternative. Appellant argues that he cannot be a wrong because it is prohibited by law. Without
convicted of "delivery" because the term the law punishing the act, it cannot be
connotes a source and a recipient, the latter considered a wrong. As such, the mere
commission of said act is what constitutes the prosecution that there is absolute necessity for
offense punished and suffices to validly charge the testimony of accused Tia.
and convict an individual caught committing the
act so punished, regardless of criminal intent. 7 WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is
hereby AFFIRMED in toto and the appeal is
As to the third assigned error, appellant contests thereby DISMISSED. No costs.
the discharge of accused Reynaldo Tia to testify
for the prosecution on the ground that there was SO ORDERED.
no necessity for the same. Appellant argues that
deep penetration agents such as Tia "have to
take risks and accept the consequences of their
actions."8 The argument is devoid of merit. The
discharge of accused Tia was based on Section
9, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court, which reads
in part:
Sec. 9. Discharge of the accused to be state

witness. — When two or more persons are
jointly charged with the commission of any
offense, upon motion of the prosecution before
resting its case, the court may directone or more
of the accused to be discharged with their
consent so that they may be witnesses for the
state . . . (emphasis supplied).
As correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General,

the discharge of an accused is left to the sound
discretion of the lower court.1âwphi1 The trial
court has the exclusive responsibility to see that
the conditions prescribed by the rule exist.9 In
the instant case, appellant does not allege that
any of the conditions for the discharge had not
been met by the prosecution. Therefore, the
discharge, as ordered by the trial court, stands.
Finally, appellant alleges that the testimony of

Sgt. Roberto Cayabyab regarding the facts
surrounding the commission of the offense
proves that the discharge of accused Tia is
unnecessary. The allegation is baseless.
Appellant himself admits that the sergeant's
testimony corroborates the testimony of the
discharged accused. The fact of corroboration
of the testimonies bolsters the validity of the
questioned discharge precisely because
paragraph (a) of the aforequoted rule on
discharge requires that the testimony be
substantially corroborated in its material points.
The corroborative testimony of the PC-CIS
operative does not debunk the claim of the
G.R. No. 188611 June 16, 2010 3. That at the time of the arrest of the accused,
accused had just alighted from a passenger
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, jeepney;
vs.
BELEN MARIACOS, Appellant. 4. That the marijuana allegedly taken from the
possession of the accused contained in two (2)
DECISION bags were submitted for examination to the
Crime Lab;
NACHURA, J.:
5. That per Chemistry Report No. D-109-2005,
Before this Court is an appeal from the the alleged drug submitted for examination gave
Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA- positive result for the presence of marijuana;
G.R. CR-HC No. 02718, which affirmed the
decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), 6. That the drugs allegedly obtained from the
Branch 29, San Fernando City, La Union, in accused contained (sic) and submitted for
Criminal Case No. 7144, finding appellant Belen examination weighed 7,030.3 grams;
Mariacos guilty of violating Article II, Section 5
of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, or the 7. The Prosecutor admits the existence of a
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. counter-affidavit executed by the accused; and
The facts of the case, as summarized by the CA, 8. The existence of the affidavits executed by
are as follows: the witnesses of the accused family (sic): Lyn
Punasen, Mercedes Tila and Magdalena
Accused-appellant Belen Mariacos was Carino."
charged in an Information, dated November 7,
2005 of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic During the trial, the prosecution established the
Act [No.] 9165, allegedly committed as follows: following evidence:
"That on or about the 27th day of October, 2005, On October 26, 2005, in the evening, the San
in the Municipality of San Gabriel, Province of Gabriel Police Station of San Gabriel, La Union,
La Union, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction conducted a checkpoint near the police station
of this Honorable Court, the above-named at the poblacion to intercept a suspected
accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully transportation of marijuana from Barangay
and feloniously transport, deliver 7,030.3, (sic) Balbalayang, San Gabriel, La Union. The group
grams of dried marijuana fruiting tops without at the checkpoint was composed of PO2 Lunes
the necessary permit or authority from the B. Pallayoc ("PO2 Pallayoc"), the Chief of
proper government agency or office. Police, and other policemen. When the
checkpoint did not yield any suspect or
CONTRARY TO LAW." marijuana, the Chief of Police instructed PO2
Pallayoc to proceed to Barangay Balbalayang to
When arraigned on December 13, 2005, conduct surveillance operation (sic).
accused-appellant pleaded not guilty. During
the pre-trial, the following were stipulated upon: At dawn on October 27, 2005, in Barangay
Balbalayang, PO2 Pallayoc met with a secret
"1. Accused admits that she is the same person agent of the Barangay Intelligence Network who
identified in the information as Belen Mariacos; informed him that a baggage of marijuana had
been loaded on a passenger jeepney that was
2. That accused is a resident of Brgy. Lunoy, about to leave for the poblacion. The agent
San Gabriel, La Union; mentioned three (3) bags and one (1) blue
plastic bag. Further, the agent described a
backpack bag with an "O.K." marking. PO2 still at the terminal waiting for passengers, one
Pallayoc then boarded the said jeepney and Bennie Lao-ang ("Lao-ang"), her neighbor,
positioned himself on top thereof. While the requested her to carry a few bags which had
vehicle was in motion, he found the black been loaded on top of the jeepney. At first,
backpack with an "O.K." marking and peeked accused-appellant refused, but she was
inside its contents. PO2 Pallayoc found bricks of persuaded later when she was told that she
marijuana wrapped in newspapers. He then would only be carrying the bags. When they
asked the other passengers on top of the reached the poblacion, Lao-ang handed
jeepney about the owner of the bag, but no one accused-appellant and her companion, Lani
knew. Herbacio, the bags, and then Lao-ang suddenly
ran away. A few moments later, PO2 Pallayoc
When the jeepney reached the poblacion, PO2 was upon them, arresting them. Without
Pallayoc alighted together with the other explanation, they were brought to the police
passengers. Unfortunately, he did not notice station. When they were at the police station,
who took the black backpack from atop the Lani Herbacio disappeared. It was also at the
jeepney. He only realized a few moments later police station that accused-appellant
that the said bag and three (3) other bags, discovered the true contents of the bags which
including a blue plastic bag, were already being she was asked to carry. She maintained that
carried away by two (2) women. He caught up she was not the owner of the bags and that she
with the women and introduced himself as a did not know what were contained in the bags.
policeman. He told them that they were under At the police station (sic) she executed a
arrest, but one of the women got away. Counter-Affidavit.3
PO2 Pallayoc brought the woman, who was On January 31, 2007, the RTC promulgated a
later identified as herein accused-appellant decision, the dispositive portion of which states:
Belen Mariacos, and the bags to the police
station. At the police station, the investigators WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused
contacted the Mayor of San Gabriel to witness Belen Mariacos GUILTY as charged and
the opening of the bags. When the Mayor sentences here (sic) to suffer the penalty of life
arrived about fifteen (15) minutes later, the bags imprisonment and to pay a fine of ₱500,000.00.
were opened and three (3) bricks of marijuana
wrapped in newspaper, two (2) round bundles of The 7,030.3 grams of marijuana are ordered
marijuana, and two (2) bricks of marijuana confiscated and turned over to the Philippine
fruiting tops, all wrapped in a newspaper, were Drug Enforcement Agency for destruction in the
recovered. presence of the Court personnel and media.
Thereafter, the investigators marked, SO ORDERED.4

inventoried and forwarded the confiscated
marijuana to the crime laboratory for Appellant appealed her conviction to the CA.
examination. The laboratory examination She argued that the trial court erred in
showed that the stuff found in the bags all tested considering the evidence of the prosecution
positive for marijuana, a dangerous drug. despite its inadmissibility.5 She claimed that her
right against an unreasonable search was
When it was accused-appellant’s turn to present flagrantly violated by Police Officer (PO)2
evidence, she testified that: Pallayoc when the latter searched the bag,
assuming it was hers, without a search warrant
On October 27, 2005, at around 7:00 in the and with no permission from her. She averred
morning, accused-appellant, together with Lani that PO2 Pallayoc’s purpose for apprehending
Herbacio, was inside a passenger jeepney her was to verify if the bag she was carrying was
bound for the poblacion. While the jeepney was the same one he had illegally searched earlier.
Moreover, appellant contended that there was the nearest office of the apprehending team,
no probable cause for her arrest.6 whichever was practicable.11
Further, appellant claimed that the prosecution In a Decision dated January 19, 2009, the CA
failed to prove the corpus delicti of the dismissed appellant’s appeal and affirmed the
crime.7 She alleged that the apprehending RTC decision in toto.12It held that the
police officers violated Dangerous Drugs Board prosecution had successfully proven that
Regulation No. 3, Series of 1979, as amended appellant carried away from the jeepney a
by Board Regulation No. 2, Series of 1990, number of bags which, when inspected by the
which prescribes the procedure in the custody police, contained dangerous drugs. The CA
of seized prohibited and regulated drugs, ruled that appellant was caught in flagrante
instruments, apparatuses, and articles. The said delicto of "carrying and conveying" the bag that
regulation directs the apprehending team contained the illegal drugs, and thus held that
having initial custody and control of the drugs appellant’s warrantless arrest was valid. The
and/or paraphernalia, immediately after seizure appellate court ratiocinated:
or confiscation, to have the same physically
inventoried and photographed in the presence It must be stressed that PO2 Pallayoc had
of appellant or her representative, who shall be earlier ascertained the contents of the bags
required to sign copies of the inventory. The when he was aboard the jeep. He saw the bricks
failure to comply with this directive, appellant of marijuana wrapped in newspaper. That said
claimed, casts a serious doubt on the identity of marijuana was on board the jeepney to be
the items allegedly confiscated from her. She, delivered to a specified destination was already
likewise, averred that the prosecution failed to unlawful. PO2 Pallayoc needed only to see for
prove that the items allegedly confiscated were himself to whom those bags belonged. So,
indeed prohibited drugs, and to establish the when he saw accused-appellant carrying the
chain of custody over the same. bags, PO2 Pallayoc was within his lawful duty to
make a warrantless arrest of accused-appellant.
On the other hand, the People, through the
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), argued xxxx
that the warrantless arrest of appellant and the
warrantless seizure of marijuana were valid and Firstly, this Court opines that the invocation of
legal,8 justified as a search of a moving vehicle. Section 2, Article III of the Constitution is
It averred that PO2 Pallayoc had reasonable misplaced. At the time, when PO2 Pallayoc
ground to believe that appellant had committed looked into the contents of the suspicious bags,
the crime of delivering dangerous drugs based there was no identified owner. He asked the
on reliable information from their agent, which other passengers atop the jeepney but no one
was confirmed when he peeked into the bags knew who owned the bags. Thus, there could be
and smelled the distinctive odor of no violation of the right when no one was
marijuana.9 The OSG also argued that appellant entitled thereto at that time.
was now estopped from questioning the
illegality of her arrest since she voluntarily Secondly, the facts of the case show the
entered a plea of "not guilty" upon arraignment urgency of the situation. The local police has
and participated in the trial and presented her been trying to intercept the transport of the
evidence.10 The OSG brushed aside appellant’s illegal drugs for more than a day, to no avail.
argument that the bricks of marijuana were not Thus, when PO2 Pallayoc was tipped by the
photographed and inventoried in her presence secret agent of the Barangay Intelligence
or that of her counsel immediately after Network, PO2 Pallayoc had no other recourse
confiscation, positing that physical inventory than to verify as promptly as possible the tip and
may be done at the nearest police station or at check the contents of the bags.
Thirdly, x x x the search was conducted in a searched and the persons or things to be
moving vehicle. Time and again, a search of a seized.
moving vehicle has been justified on the ground
that the mobility of motor vehicles makes it Law and jurisprudence have laid down the
possible for the vehicle to move out of the instances when a warrantless search is valid.
locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must These are:
be sought. Thus, under the facts, PO2 Pallayoc
could not be expected to secure a search 1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful
warrant in order to check the contents of the arrest recognized under Section 12 [now
bags which were loaded on top of the moving Section 13], Rule 126 of the Rules of Court and
jeepney. Otherwise, a search warrant would by prevailing jurisprudence;
have been of no use because the motor vehicle
had already left the locality.13 2. Seizure of evidence in "plain view," the
elements of which are:
Appellant is now before this Court, appealing
her conviction. (a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid
warrantless arrest in which the police are legally
Once again, we are asked to determine the present in the pursuit of their official duties;
limits of the powers of the State’s agents to
conduct searches and seizures. Over the years, (b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered
this Court had laid down the rules on searches by the police who had the right to be where they
and seizures, providing, more or less, clear are;
parameters in determining which are proper and
which are not.1avvphi1 (c) the evidence must be immediately
apparent[;] and;
Appellant’s main argument before the CA
centered on the inadmissibility of the evidence (d) "plain view" justified mere seizure of
used against her. She claims that her evidence without further search.
constitutional right against unreasonable
searches was flagrantly violated by the 3. Search of a moving vehicle. Highly regulated
apprehending officer. by the government, the vehicle's inherent
mobility reduces expectation of privacy
Thus, we must determine if the search was especially when its transit in public
lawful. If it was, then there would have been thoroughfares furnishes a highly reasonable
probable cause for the warrantless arrest of suspicion amounting to probable cause that the
appellant. occupant committed a criminal activity;
Article III, Section 2 of the Philippine 4. Consented warrantless search;

Constitution provides:
5. Customs search;
Section 2. The right of the people to be secure
in their persons, houses, papers, and effects 6. Stop and Frisk; and
against unreasonable searches and seizures of
whatever nature and for any purpose shall be 7. Exigent and Emergency Circumstances.14
inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of
arrest shall issue except upon probable cause Both the trial court and the CA anchored their
to be determined personally by the judge after respective decisions on the fact that the search
examination under oath or affirmation of the was conducted on a moving vehicle to justify the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, validity of the search.
and particularly describing the place to be
Indeed, the search of a moving vehicle is one of to induce a cautious man to believe that the
the doctrinally accepted exceptions to the person accused is guilty of the offense charged.
Constitutional mandate that no search or It refers to the existence of such facts and
seizure shall be made except by virtue of a circumstances that can lead a reasonably
warrant issued by a judge after personally discreet and prudent man to believe that an
determining the existence of probable cause.15 offense has been committed, and that the items,
articles or objects sought in connection with said
In People v. Bagista,16 the Court said: offense or subject to seizure and destruction by
law are in the place to be searched.19
The constitutional proscription against
warrantless searches and seizures admits of The grounds of suspicion are reasonable when,
certain exceptions. Aside from a search incident in the absence of actual belief of the arresting
to a lawful arrest, a warrantless search had officers, the suspicion that the person to be
been upheld in cases of a moving vehicle, and arrested is probably guilty of committing the
the seizure of evidence in plain view. offense is based on actual facts, i.e., supported
by circumstances sufficiently strong in
With regard to the search of moving vehicles, themselves to create the probable cause of guilt
this had been justified on the ground that the of the person to be arrested. A reasonable
mobility of motor vehicles makes it possible for suspicion therefore must be founded on
the vehicle to be searched to move out of the probable cause, coupled with good faith on the
locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must part of the peace officers making the arrest. 20
be sought.
Over the years, the rules governing search and
This in no way, however, gives the police seizure have been steadily liberalized whenever
officers unlimited discretion to conduct a moving vehicle is the object of the search on
warrantless searches of automobiles in the the basis of practicality. This is so considering
absence of probable cause. When a vehicle is that before a warrant could be obtained, the
stopped and subjected to an extensive search, place, things and persons to be searched must
such a warrantless search has been held to be be described to the satisfaction of the issuing
valid only as long as the officers conducting the judge – a requirement which borders on the
search have reasonable or probable cause to impossible in instances where moving vehicle is
believe before the search that they will find the used to transport contraband from one place to
instrumentality or evidence pertaining to a another with impunity.21
crime, in the vehicle to be searched.
This exception is easy to understand. A search
It is well to remember that in the instances we warrant may readily be obtained when the
have recognized as exceptions to the search is made in a store, dwelling house or
requirement of a judicial warrant, it is necessary other immobile structure. But it is impracticable
that the officer effecting the arrest or seizure to obtain a warrant when the search is
must have been impelled to do so because of conducted on a mobile ship, on an aircraft, or in
probable cause. The essential requisite of other motor vehicles since they can quickly be
probable cause must be satisfied before a moved out of the locality or jurisdiction where
warrantless search and seizure can be lawfully the warrant must be sought.22
conducted.17 Without probable cause, the
articles seized cannot be admitted in evidence Given the discussion above, it is readily
against the person arrested.18 apparent that the search in this case is valid.
The vehicle that carried the contraband or
Probable cause is defined as a reasonable prohibited drugs was about to leave. PO2
ground of suspicion supported by Pallayoc had to make a quick decision and act
circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves fast. It would be unreasonable to require him to
procure a warrant before conducting the search that the person to be arrested has committed it;
under the circumstances. Time was of the and
essence in this case. The searching officer had
no time to obtain a warrant. Indeed, he only had (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner
enough time to board the vehicle before the who has escaped from a penal establishment or
same left for its destination. place where he is serving final judgment or is
temporarily confined while his case is pending,
It is well to remember that on October 26, 2005, or has escaped while being transferred from one
the night before appellant’s arrest, the police confinement to another.
received information that marijuana was to be
transported from Barangay Balbalayang, and In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b)
had set up a checkpoint around the area to above, the person arrested without a warrant
intercept the suspects. At dawn of October 27, shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police
2005, PO2 Pallayoc met the secret agent from station or jail and shall be proceeded against in
the Barangay Intelligence Network, who accordance with section 7 of Rule 112.24
informed him that a baggage of marijuana was
loaded on a passenger jeepney about to leave Be that as it may, we have held that a search
for the poblacion. Thus, PO2 Pallayoc had substantially contemporaneous with an arrest
probable cause to search the packages can precede the arrest if the police has probable
allegedly containing illegal drugs. cause to make the arrest at the outset of the
search.25
This Court has also, time and again, upheld as
valid a warrantless search incident to a lawful Given that the search was valid, appellant’s
arrest. Thus, Section 13, Rule 126 of the Rules arrest based on that search is also valid.
of Court provides:
Article II, Section 5 of the Comprehensive
SEC. 13. Search incident to lawful arrest.—A Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 states:
person lawfully arrested may be searched for
dangerous weapons or anything which may SEC. 5 Sale, Trading, Administration,
have been used or constitute proof in the Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and
commission of an offense without a search Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or
warrant.23 Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals.
– The penalty of life imprisonment to death and
For this rule to apply, it is imperative that there a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand
be a prior valid arrest. Although, generally, a pesos (₱500,000.00) to Ten million pesos
warrant is necessary for a valid arrest, the Rules (₱10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any
of Court provides the exceptions therefor, to wit: person, who, unless authorized by law, shall
sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give
SEC. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful.—A away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or
peace officer or a private person may, without a transport any dangerous drug, including any
warrant, arrest a person: and all species of opium poppy regardless of the
quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be broker in any of such transactions.
arrested has committed, is actually committing,
or is attempting to commit an offense; The penalty of imprisonment ranging from
twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20)
(b) When an offense has just been committed years and a fine ranging from One hundred
and he has probable cause to believe based on thousand pesos (₱100,000.00) to Five hundred
personal knowledge of facts or circumstances thousand pesos (₱500,000.00) shall be
imposed upon any person who, unless
authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, Moreover, appellant’s possession of the
dispense, deliver, give away to another, packages containing illegal drugs gave rise to
distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any the disputable presumption33that she is the
controlled precursor and essential chemical, or owner of the packages and their
shall act as a broker in such transactions. contents.34 Appellant failed to rebut this
presumption. Her uncorroborated claim of lack
In her defense, appellant averred that the of knowledge that she had prohibited drug in her
packages she was carrying did not belong to her possession is insufficient.
but to a neighbor who had asked her to carry the
same for him. This contention, however, is of no Appellant’s narration of facts deserves little
consequence. credence. If it is true that Bennie Lao-ang
merely asked her and her companion to carry
When an accused is charged with illegal some baggages, it is but logical to first ask what
possession or transportation of prohibited the packages contained and where these would
drugs, the ownership thereof is immaterial. be taken. Likewise, if, as appellant said, Lao-
Consequently, proof of ownership of the ang ran away after they disembarked from the
confiscated marijuana is not necessary.26 jeepney, appellant and her companion should
have ran after him to give him the bags he had
Appellant’s alleged lack of knowledge does not left with them, and not to continue on their
constitute a valid defense. Lack of criminal journey without knowing where they were taking
intent and good faith are not exempting the bags.
circumstances where the crime charged
is malum prohibitum, as in this case.27 Mere Next, appellant argues that the prosecution
possession and/or delivery of a prohibited drug, failed to prove the corpus delicti of the crime. In
without legal authority, is punishable under the particular, she alleged that the apprehending
Dangerous Drugs Act.28 police officers failed to follow the procedure in
the custody of seized prohibited and regulated
Anti-narcotics laws, like anti-gambling laws, are drugs, instruments, apparatuses, and articles.
regulatory statutes. They are rules of
convenience designed to secure a more orderly In all prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous
regulation of the affairs of society, and their Drugs Act, the existence of all dangerous drugs
violation gives rise to crimes mala prohibita. is a sine qua non for conviction. The dangerous
Laws defining crimes mala prohibita condemn drug is the very corpus delicti of that crime.35
behavior directed not against particular
individuals, but against public order.29 Thus, Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 prescribes
the procedure for custody and disposition of
Jurisprudence defines "transport" as "to carry or seized dangerous drugs, to wit:
convey from one place to another."30 There is no
definitive moment when an accused "transports" Section 21. Custody and Disposition of
a prohibited drug. When the circumstances Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered
establish the purpose of an accused to transport Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous
and the fact of transportation itself, there should Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential
be no question as to the perpetration of the Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or
criminal act.31The fact that there is actual Laboratory Equipment. – The PDEA shall take
conveyance suffices to support a finding that the charge and have custody of all dangerous
act of transporting was committed and it is drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs,
immaterial whether or not the place of controlled precursors and essential chemicals,
destination is reached.32 as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or
laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized
and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the practicable, in case of warrantless seizures;
following manner: Provided, further, that non-compliance with
these requirements under justifiable grounds, as
(1) The apprehending team having initial long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of
custody and control of the drugs shall, the seized items are properly preserved by the
immediately after seizure and confiscation, apprehending officer/team, shall not render void
physically inventory and photograph the same and invalid such seizures of and custody over
in the presence of the accused or the person/s said items.
from whom such items were confiscated and/or
seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a PO2 Pallayoc testified that after apprehending
representative from the media and the appellant, he immediately brought her to the
Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected police station. At the station, the police
public official who shall be required to sign the requested the Mayor to witness the opening of
copies of the inventory and be given a copy the bags seized from appellant. When the
thereof. Mayor arrived, he opened the bag in front of
appellant and the other police officers. The
The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) black bag yielded three bricks of marijuana
of R.A. No. 9165 further provides: wrapped in newspaper, while the plastic bag
yielded two bundles of marijuana and two bricks
SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of of marijuana fruiting tops.36 PO2 Pallayoc
Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered identified the bricks. He and PO3 Stanley
Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Campit then marked the same. Then the seized
Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors items were brought to the PNP Crime
and Essential Chemicals, Laboratory for examination.
Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or
Laboratory Equipment. – The PDEA shall take It is admitted that there were no photographs
charge and have custody of all dangerous taken of the drugs seized, that appellant was not
drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, accompanied by counsel, and that no
controlled precursors and essential chemicals, representative from the media and the DOJ
as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or were present. However, this Court has already
laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized previously held that non-compliance with
and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the Section 21 is not fatal and will not render an
following manner: accused’s arrest illegal, or make the items
seized inadmissible. What is of utmost
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial importance is the preservation of the integrity
custody and control of the drugs shall, and evidentiary value of the seized items.37
immediately after seizure and confiscation,
physically inventory and photograph the same Based on the testimony of PO2 Pallayoc, after
in the presence of the accused or the person/s appellant’s arrest, she was immediately brought
from whom such items were confiscated and/or to the police station where she stayed while
seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a waiting for the Mayor. It was the Mayor who
representative from the media and the opened the packages, revealing the illegal
Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected drugs, which were thereafter marked and sent
public official who shall be required to sign the to the police crime laboratory the following day.
copies of the inventory and be given a copy Contrary to appellant’s claim, the prosecution’s
thereof: Provided, that the physical inventory evidence establishes the chain of custody from
and photograph shall be conducted at the place the time of appellant’s arrest until the prohibited
where the search warrant is served; or at the drugs were tested at the police crime laboratory.
nearest police station or at the nearest office of
the apprehending officer/team, whichever is
While it is true that the arresting officer failed to

state explicitly the justifiable ground for non-
compliance with Section 21, this does not
necessarily mean that appellant’s arrest was
illegal or that the items seized are inadmissible.
The justifiable ground will remain unknown
because appellant did not question the custody
and disposition of the items taken from her
during the trial.38 Even assuming that the police
officers failed to abide by Section 21, appellant
should have raised this issue before the trial
court. She could have moved for the quashal of
the information at the first instance. But she did
not. Hence, she is deemed to have waived any
objection on the matter.
Further, the actions of the police officers, in

relation to the procedural rules on the chain of
custody, enjoyed the presumption of regularity
in the performance of official functions. Courts
accord credence and full faith to the testimonies
of police authorities, as they are presumed to be
performing their duties regularly, absent any
convincing proof to the contrary.39
In sum, the prosecution successfully

established appellant’s guilt. Thus, her
conviction must be affirmed.
WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises

considered, the appeal is DISMISSED. The
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-
HC No. 02718 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 120670 October 23, 2003 Sometime in November, 1993, the PNP
Narcotics Command issued a directive to all
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, Chiefs of Narcotics Regional Field Units to cover
vs. all domestic airport terminals within their
HEDISHI SUZUKI, appellant. respective areas of responsibility, following
reports that drug trafficking is prevalent in
DECISION domestic airports; and to coordinate with local
airport authorities and the PASCOM.
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
In the morning of April 12, 1994, while the
For automatic review is the Decision1of the prosecution witnesses were in their respective
Regional Trial Court, Branch 45, Bacolod City in stations, appellant and Takeshi Koketsu, both
Criminal Case No. 94-16100 convicting Hedishi Japanese nationals, entered the pre-departure
Suzuki, appellant, of illegal possession of area of the Bacolod Airport Terminal. Appellant
marijuana, defined and penalized under Section was bound for Manila via flight No. 132 of the
8, Article II of R.A. No. 6525, as amended, 2 and Philippine Airlines and was carrying a small
sentencing him to suffer the penalty of death traveling bag and a box marked
and to pay a fine of ₱10,000,000.00. "Bongbong’s piaya." At the pre-departure area,
4
upon the advice of Corazon Sinosa, a civilian

The Information3 against appellant reads: personnel of the PASCOM, appellant
proceeded to the "walk-through metal detector,"
"That on or about the 12th day of April, 1994, in a machine which produces a red light and an
the City of Bacolod, Philippines, and within the alarm once it detects the presence of metallic
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the herein substance or object. Thereupon, the red light
accused, not being lawfully authorized to switched on and the alarm sounded, signifying
possess, prepare, administer or otherwise use the presence of metallic substance either in his
any prohibited drug, did then and there willfully, person or in the box he was carrying. This
unlawfully and feloniously have in his prompted PO3 Poyugao to frisk him bodily.
possession and under his custody and control Finding no metallic object in his body, PO3
1.9 kilos or 1,900 grams, more or less, of Poyugao picked up the box of piaya and passed
marijuana which is a prohibited drug, in violation it through the machine. Again, the machine was
of the aforementioned laws. activated. PO3 Poyugao then ordered appellant
to go to the hand-carried luggage inspection
"Acts contrary to law." counter where several PASCOM and NARCOM
personnel were present. SPO1 Casugod
Upon arraignment, appellant entered a plea of requested appellant to open the box. He
not guilty. Thereafter, trial followed.1a\^/phi1.net appeared tense and reluctant and started to
leave, but SPO1 Casugod called him.
The prosecution presented P/Inspector Rea Eventually he consented, saying in faltering
Abastillas Villavicencio, the forensic chemist of English, "open, open." SPO1 Casugod opened
the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime the box and found therein eighteen (18) small
Laboratory, SPO1 Arturo Casugod, Sr. of the packs, seventeen (17) of which were wrapped
Police Aviation Security Command (PASCOM), in aluminum foil. SPO1 Casugod opened one
PO3 Rhodelin Poyugao, also of the PASCOM, pack. Inside were dried fruiting tops which
and SPO1 Gilbert Linda of the Narcotics looked like marijuana. Upon seeing this,
Command (NARCOM), all of Bacolod City. Their appellant ran outside the pre-departure area but
testimonies, woven together, established the he was chased by PO3 Poyugao, SPO1 Linda
following facts: and Donato Barnezo of the PASCOM.
They apprehended appellant near the entrance The following day or on April 12, 1994, appellant
of the terminal and brought him to the PASCOM went to the airport.1awphi1.nét Pinky, who was
office. They also brought Takeshi and his wife, there waiting, gave him a box of
Lourdes Linsangan, to the office, being "Bongbong’s piaya" as "pasalubong" from
suspects as conspirators with appellant in drug Bacolod City. He did not ascertain the contents
trafficking. Lourdes asked permission to call of the box since he trusted Pinky although he
Atty. Silvestre Tayson. When he arrived, the just met her the previous night.
police apprised appellant of his constitutional
rights. Appellant found and joined Takeshi and
Lourdes at the coffee shop. Takeshi apologized
Meanwhile, SPO1 Casugod weighed the for his failure to pay his debt, assuring him that
contents of the box and inventoried the same. he would settle his obligation next month.
The total weight of the suspected marijuana
fruiting tops was 1.9 kilograms or 1,900 grams. When it was time to leave, appellant,
He then drafted a "confiscation receipt" which accompanied by Takeshi, proceeded to the pre-
appellant, upon the advice of Atty. Tayson, departure area. When he passed through the
refused to acknowledge. SPO1 Casugod turned metal detector, a policeman frisked him, got the
over appellant to SPO1 Linda for investigation. box and placed it inside the metal detector. The
machine produced a red light, hence, the
Subsequently, appellant and his companions policeman brought the box to the inspection
were brought to the prosecutor’s office for table, with appellant following him. Thereafter,
inquest and placed under the custody of the policeman, whom he later knew as SPO1
C/Inspector Ernesto Alcantara at the NARCOM Arturo Casugod, pointed to the box uttering
office. The box with its contents was brought to something appellant did not understand.
the PNP Crime Laboratory. Inspector Appellant said, "wait a minute," (in Japanese)
Villavicencio conducted three tests on the and went outside to ask Takeshi and Lourdes to
specimen samples which proved positive for interpret for him, but they did not respond. When
marijuana. PO3 Rhodelin Poyugao called him back to the
pre-departure area, he found Takeshi near the
The defense presented appellant as its sole table and the box containing something
witness whose testimony is as follows: On April wrapped in aluminum foil already opened.
9, 1994, he and Takeshi Koketsu arrived in Takeshi told him that he was carrying marijuana.
Manila from Osaka, Japan. The purpose of his He replied it was given to him by a woman that
trip was to collect from Takeshi Y2.5 million or morning. Then he and SPO1 Casugod went to
₱500,000.00 which the latter owed him. Waiting the PASCOM office where the latter weighed
for them at the airport was Takeshi’s wife, the contents of the box. He did not sign the
Lourdes. On the same day, the three flew to "Confiscation Receipt" presented to him. They
Bacolod City. Appellant stayed at the house of then proceeded to the NARCOM office with
Takeshi. C/Inspector Ernesto Alcantara, SPO1 Linda,
PO3 Poyugao, and three other officers. From
Two days later, appellant asked Takeshi to pay. the NARCOM office, appellant was brought to
When Takeshi admitted he had no money, the Bacolod Police Station.
appellant got angry and went to the Casino
Filipino where he stayed until 10:30 in the Shortly thereafter, they went to the Nagoya
evening. Upon leaving the casino, he met Pinky Restaurant owned by Takeshi where appellant
who enticed him to have sex with her. They then saw C/Inspector Alcantara and Lourdes talking.
proceeded to the Moonlight Motel. Moments When he inquired from Takeshi what was going
later, Pinky left, while appellant stayed there for on, he was told they needed money in dealing
the night. He told her he was leaving the with the police. Appellant was then brought to
following morning. the prosecutor’s office. There Takeshi told him
to keep silent as he would make a deal with the THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN
prosecutor. Then they went to Takeshi’s house FINDING THAT THE GOVERNMENT AGENTS
where appellant stayed for two days. HAD THE LEGAL AUTHORITY WHEN THEY
OPENED AND SEARCHED THE SMALL
On April 14, 1994, C/Inspector Alcantara and CARTON IN QUESTION.
SPO1 Linda brought appellant to the Bacolod
City Jail. Takeshi visited him twice, advising him II
to ask someone from Japan to send him money
and be discreet, otherwise he would be killed; THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN
and to admit he has in his possession less than FINDING THAT SUFFICIENT PROBABLE
750 grams of marijuana so he could post bail. CAUSE EXISTS FOR THE OPENING AND
However, he refused. SEARCH OF THE SUBJECT CARTON AND IN
DECLARING LEGAL AND VALID THE
Five days later, appellant, escorted by the SEIZURE OF SAID CARTON AND THE
police, went to Takeshi’s house to retrieve his SUBSEQUENT ARREST OF THE
money (Y120,000 equivalent to ₱30,000.00), APPELLANT.
but Takeshi told him that it was already spent for
the food and drinks of the NARCOM agents and III
the airport policemen.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN
On December 7, 1994, the trial court rendered ADMITTING IN EVIDENCE THE MARIJUANA
its Decision, the dispositive portion of which CONTENTS OF THE SUBJECT CARTON
reads: AGAINST THE APPELLANT.
"WHEREFORE, finding the accused HEDISHI IV

SUZUKI guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
offense charged, he is hereby sentenced to THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN
suffer the maximum penalty of death, to pay a FINDING THAT THE SEARCH ON THE
fine of Ten Million Pesos (₱10,000,000.00), and CARTON IN QUESTION WAS INCIDENTAL
to pay the costs. TO A LAWFUL ARREST.
"Pursuant to Section 20, Article IV of Republic V

Act No. 6425, as amended by Section 17 of
Republic Act No. 7659, let the 1,547.07 grams THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN
of dried marijuana fruiting tops, subject matter of FINDING THAT THE SEARCH ON THE
this case, be confiscated and forfeited in favor SUBJECT CARTON WAS MADE UNDER THE
of the government and be turned over to the EXCEPTION OF SEIZURE OF EVIDENCE IN
Dangerous Drugs Board Custodian, NBI, to be PLAIN VIEW.
disposed according to law.
VI
"SO ORDERED."
Hence the instant mandatory review. FINDING THAT THE ARREST OF THE
APPELLANT WAS VALID AS HE WAS
In his brief, appellant ascribes to the trial court CAUGHT IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO
the following errors: POSSESSING MARIJUANA.
"I VII
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN REASONABLE DOUBT ON THE GUILT OF

FINDING THAT THERE WAS UNQUALIFIED, THE APPELLANT.
VOLUNTARY AND AUTHORITATIVE
CONSENT GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT TO XIII
THE OPENING OF THE CARTON.
VIII GOING BEYOND THE EVIDENCE
PRESENTED BY THE PROSECUTION IN
ON THE ASSUMPTION EX GRATIA SUPPORT OF ITS DECISION CONVICTING
ARGUMENTI THAT THE APPELLANT WAS APPELLANT.
CAUGHT IN POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA,
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN XIV
CONVICTING HIM, FOR THE PROSECUTION
FAILED TO PROVE THE NEGATIVE THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN
ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE. SENTENCING APPELLANT TO THE
MAXIMUM PENALTY OF DEATH AND
IX IMPOSING A FINE OF TEN MILLION PESOS.
ON THE ASSUMPTION EX GRATIA XV

ARGUMENTI THAT HE WAS CAUGHT IN
PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE CARTON THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN
IN QUESTION (CONTAINING MARIJUANA), HOLDING THAT THE GUILT OF THE
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN APPELLANT WAS PROVEN BY THE
FINDING THAT APPELLANT INTENDED TO PROSECUTION BEYOND REASONABLE
POSSESS SAID PACKS OF MARIJUANA. DOUBT AND IN NOT ACQUITTING HIM."
X Considering that the above assigned errors are

interrelated, they will be discussed jointly.
FINDING THAT APPELLANT’S PETITION TO Appellant invokes his constitutional right against
BE RELEASED ON BAIL CONSTITUTES unreasonable search and seizure, contending
WAIVER OF ANY IRREGULARITY that: (1) the authority to open and investigate
ATTENDING HIS ARREST AND ESTOPS HIM suspicious packages and cargoes under
FROM QUESTIONING ITS VALIDITY. Section 8 of Republic Act No. 62355 does not
apply to PASCOM and NARCOM agents but is
XI limited only to aircraft companies or operators of
aircraft for hire; (2) he did not consent to be
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT searched by the authorities; (3) the prohibited
GIVING DUE WEIGHT, CONSIDERATION substances confiscated by the authorities were
AND CREDIT TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE not actually in their plain view; and (4) the
APPELLANT AND IN DECLARING THE SAME search they conducted was not incidental to a
SELF-SERVING AND NOT AMPLY PROVEN. lawful arrest.
XII Pertinent is Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6235

which reads:
DISREGARDING SUBSTANTIAL "SECTION 8. Aircraft companies which operate
CONTRADICTIONS IN THE EVIDENCE FOR as public utilities or operators of aircraft which
THE PROSECUTION WHICH CREATE are for hire are authorized to open and
investigate suspicious packages and cargoes in
the presence of the owner or shipper, or his 4. Take all necessary preventive measures to
authorized representatives if present, in order to maintain peace and order, and provide other
help the authorities in the enforcement of the pertinent public safety services within the
provisions of this Act: Provided, That if the airports;
owner, shipper or his representative refuses to
have the same opened and inspected, the xxx
airline or air carrier is authorized to refuse the
loading thereof." ‘One of its guidelines before the passenger can
enter the sanitized area (pre-departure area) is
In line with the afore-cited law, the trial court to check the hand-carried luggage and personal
correctly upheld the PASCOM’s authority to effects of passengers (PAFM 3-9, page 2-3).
open packages and cargoes, thus:
‘Passengers are allowed one hand-carried bag
"This Court does not subscribe to the contention or attaché case with the following limitation:
of the accused. The Police Aviation Security
Command (PASCOM) is the implementing arm a. x x x x x x
of the National Action Committee on Anti-
Hijacking (NACAH), which is a creation of b. x x x x x x
Presidential Letter of Instruction (LOI) No. 399,
dated April 28, 1976. c. It can be readily opened for
inspection (PAFM 3-9, page 2-4).
"On February 18, 1978, a Memorandum of
Understanding among the Secretary of National ‘Based upon the Memorandum of
Defense, the Secretary of Public Works, Understanding, pursuant to President LOI 399,
Transportation and Communication, the in relation to R.A. 6235, the PASCOM had the
Secretary of Justice, the Director General, legal authority to be at the Bacolod Airport,
National Intelligence and Security Authority and Bacolod City and to inspect luggages or hand-
the Secretary of Finance was signed. The carried bags.
purpose was to establish a working
arrangement among cognizant agencies, set up ‘Under DOC 8973/3, Security Manual for
guidelines and procedures for the security of the Safeguarding Civil Aviation against Acts of
airport complex throughout the Philippines Unlawful Interference, particularly paragraph
particularly handling, coordination and 3.6.4 ‘when x-ray inspection is not
disposition of hijacking and other criminal possible or when the x-ray image of a bag gives
incidents that may occur thereat (PAFM 3-9, rise to suspicion, x x x, a manual search must
page 1-3). be carried out’ (Memorandum of the
Prosecution, pp. 15-16; underscoring supplied).’
‘Under the said Memorandum of Understanding
the then AVSECOM (now PASCOM) shall have "The prosecution correctly argued that the
the following functions and responsibilities: PASCOM established a system of
checkpoint at the pre-departure area of the
1. Secure all airports against offensive and Bacolod Airport to quickly inspect or screen
terroristic acts that threaten civil aviation; persons or hand-carried baggages for illegal
items pursuant to said Memorandum of
2. Undertake aircraft anti-hijacking operations; Agreement, which in turn derived its life from
LOI 399. In short, the setting up of checkpoint at
3. Exercise operational control and supervision the Bacolod Airport on April 12, 1994 does not
over all agencies involved in airport security have only jurisprudential basis (Valmonte vs. De
operations; Villa, et al., G.R. No. 83288, September 29,
1989, 178 SCRA 211, more popularly known as airport security procedures. With increased
the ‘checkpoints cases’) but also statutory basis. concern over airplane hijacking and terrorism
has come increased security at the nation’s
"Moreover, to sustain the stand of the accused airports. Passengers attempting to board an
exclusively limiting the authority to open and aircraft routinely pass through metal detectors;
search ‘suspicious’ luggages would result to their carry-on baggage as well as checked
absurdity. It would deprive law enforcers of their luggage are routinely subjected to x-ray scans.
authority to perform their duty of maintaining Should these procedures suggest the presence
order, preserving peace, protecting life and of suspicious objects, physical searches are
property and other police works such as crime conducted to determine what the objects are.
detection, while within the airport premises. The There is little question that such searches are
construction given by the accused conveniently reasonable, given their minimal intrusiveness,
omitted the phrase found in Section 8 of the gravity of the safety interests involved, and
Republic Act No. 6235 which reads ‘in order to the reduced privacy expectations associated
help the authorities in the enforcement of the with airline travel. Indeed, travelers are often
provisions of this Act.’ The word ‘authorities’ notified through airport public address systems,
evidently refers to police officers and other law signs and notices in their airline tickets that they
enforcers such as the PASCOM officers. It are subject to search and, if any prohibited
follows that in allowing or authorizing aircraft materials or substances are found, such would
companies which operate as public utilities or be subject to seizure. These announcements
operators of aircraft which are for hire, to open place passengers on notice that ordinary
and investigate suspicious packages and constitutional protections against warrantless
seizures, the authors of the law does not searches and seizures do not apply to routine
disallow or prohibit law enforcement agencies of airport procedures." (Underscoring ours)
the government from assisting or conducting the
opening and investigation of suspicious Clearly, the PASCOM agents have the right
packages and cargoes. Otherwise, they will be under the law to conduct search of prohibited
remiss in their sworn duty of protecting the materials or substances. To simply refuse
public in general and more particularly those in passengers carrying suspected illegal items to
the aviation industry. x x x. It becomes crystal- enter the pre-departure area, as claimed by
clear that the PASCOM officers and personnel appellant, is to deprive the authorities of their
had the legal authority when they opened and duty to conduct search, thus sanctioning
investigated the box in the presence of the impotence and ineffectivity of the law enforcers,
accused and his counsel." to the detriment of society.8
This is not the first time we recognize a search It should be stressed, however, that whenever
conducted pursuant to routine airport security the right against unreasonable search and
procedure as an exception to the proscription seizure is challenged, an individual may choose
against warrantless searches. In People vs. between invoking the constitutional protection or
Canton,6 and People vs. Johnson,7 we validated waiving his right by giving consent to the search
the search conducted on the departing or seizure.9
passengers and the consequent seizure of
the shabu found in their persons, thus: Here, appellant voluntarily gave his consent to
the search conducted by the PASCOM agents.
"Persons may lose the protection of the search The testimony of SPO1 Arturo Casugod, Sr. is
and seizure clause by exposure of their persons quite revealing, thus:
or property to the public in a manner reflecting a
lack of subjective expectation of privacy, which "Q And when the said carton box was passed
expectation society is prepared to recognize as for the second time thru the walk-through
reasonable. Such recognition is implicit in
machine it indicated this metallic element by A He came back and I explained to him again,
flashing a red light, is that correct? sir, that we are very sorry but we need to open
your small carton marked Bongbong Piaya. I
A Yes, sir. told him, ‘I am very sorry, sir, but we need to
open your small carton marked Bongbong
Q And because of that, what did you do? Piaya’.
A Rhodelin Poyugao put the box on top of the Q And what did Mr. Suzuki do?
inspection table.
A Mr. Suzuki answered me, ‘open’.
Q What happened then?
Q What did you do?
A And then our non-uniformed personnel, Mr.
Donato Barnezo, asked the passenger Mr. A I said ‘kindly open your carton’ and he
Hedishi Suzuki, saying, ‘kindly open your box for repeated, ‘open’.
inspection’.
Q For the second time?
Q What happened after he asked the accused
to open the box? A Yes, sir.
A Mr. Hedishi Suzuki refused to open, sir. He Q What did you do then because he said ‘open’?
signaled ‘no, no’.
A I explained to him, sir, and I asked him again,
Q What happened then? ‘sir, I am going to open this’ and he told me ‘you
open’.
A At that juncture, sir. I advised the said
passenger, Mr. Hedishi Suzuki: ‘Very sorry, sir, Q Then, what did you do?
we need to open your luggage because it
indicated a red light’. A I got hold of the carton and opened it by
means of cutting the masking tape that bound
Q When you say open the luggage you are both ends of the carton.
referring to the box?
Q And what did you find inside the said box?
A Referring to the small carton marked
Bongbong Piaya. A When I opened the box, sir, I found out that it
contained suspected dried marijuana fruiting
Q What happened then? tops wrapped in an aluminum foil, sir, and
transparent cellophane.
A Mr. Hedishi Suzuki tried to get outside of the
pre-departure area instead of opening the box. x x x."10
Q Where did Mr. Suzuki go if he went away? That appellant gave his consent when PO1
Casugod asked him to open the box was
A Before he could get out of the door of the pre- confirmed by SPO1 Linda and PO3
departure area I called his attention to come Poyugao.11 As succinctly found by the trial court,
back. appellant cannot deny that he consented by
feigning ignorance of the English language,
Q Did he come back? thus:
"Accused through counsel would want this airport. He has traveled to the Philippines about
Court to believe that the opening of the carton ten (10) times. He claims to be an owner and
containing marijuana fruiting tops was without manager of a company where some clients or
the consent of the accused. The defense relied customers are non-Japanese such as Germans
on the alleged inability of the accused to and Americans. During the trial accused
understand nor speak the English language appeared to be an intelligent witness and this
because he is a Japanese national. It made Court has keenly observed that accused had
capital on the presence of Japanese shown eagerness and readiness to answer the
interpreters, Tsuyushi Tsuchida and Hideo questions propounded in the English language
Agarie, who assisted during the trial. even before the Japanese translation. Above all,
accused answered in the affirmative when
"The Court has no doubt in the positive queried by the Court whether he was able to
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and attend English classes while in college. In short,
their categorical declaration that accused the Court was literally taken for a ride when
Hedishi Suzuki gave his consent not only initially made to believe that the accused could
nodding his head but also by saying ‘Open. not read, speak and understand the English
Open. Open.’ There was even a ‘third-party language."
consent’ given by his Japanese companion
Takeshi Koketsu. It is axiomatic that a reasonable search is not to
be determined by any fixed formula but is to be
"The allegation of the accused that he does not resolved according to the facts of each
understand English is indeed incredible to case.12 Given the circumstances obtaining here,
believe. As aptly observed by Assistant City we find the search conducted by the airport
Prosecutor Rafael Guanco, the trial prosecutor, authorities reasonable and, therefore, not
‘the accused might not be able to speak straight violative of his constitutional rights. Hence,
English yet he might understand English’ when the search of the box of piaya revealed
(Memorandum of the Prosecution, page 21). several marijuana fruiting tops, appellant is
The prosecution witnesses categorically deemed to have been caught in flagrante
declared that accused Hedishi Suzuki was delicto, justifying his arrest even without a
speaking English during the airport encounter warrant under Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the
with the PASCOM and NARCOM operatives Rules of Criminal Procedure.13 The packs of
and while being investigated at the PASCOM marijuana obtained in the course of such valid
Office. While it may be true that Lourdes search are thus admissible as evidence against
Linsangan participated on some occasions, her appellant.14
participation merely facilitated the conversation.
Nonetheless, we find the trial court’s reliance on
"The Court cannot believe accused’s the plain view doctrine misplaced. Such doctrine
protestation of ignorance of the English finds application only when the incriminating
language. There are several indications that nature of the object is in the "plain view" of the
accused understand the English language. It police officer.15 Here, it is beyond cavil that the
may be noted that in filing a motion to terminate marijuana seized from appellant is contained in
the legal services of Atty. Nicanor Villarosa, it the box of piaya, wrapped in aluminum foil and
appeared that accused caused its preparation not immediately apparent to the airport
or filing without the assistance of a lawyer authorities.
(Motion To Terminate Services of Counsel,
page 53, expediente). The accused testified Neither was the search incidental to a lawful
that his wife is proficient in English. Accused arrest since appellant was not yet arrested at
was able to play games in the casino, the night the time of the search. To be considered a
before the airport incident. He was able to give search incidental to a lawful arrest, the law
direction to the driver from the motel to the
requires that there must be a lawful arrest its competence, since it had the unique
before the search can be made.16 opportunity of observing the witnesses and their
manner of testifying during trial, had long been
At this point, it bears stressing that mere established. Hence, its findings are accorded
possession of the prohibited substance is a respect and will not be disturbed on appeal,
crime per se and the burden of proof is upon except when there is a clear showing that facts
appellant to show that he has a license or permit of weight and substance which would affect the
under the law to possess the prohibited outcome of the case have been overlooked,
drug.17 Here, appellant failed to prove that he misunderstood, or misapplied.21 This exception
has a license to possess the marijuana. is not present here.
In People vs. Bongcarawan,18 we held that such
possession constitutes prima facie evidence However, the trial court imposed the wrong
of animus possidendi sufficient to convict an penalty.
accused in the absence of any satisfactory
explanation. Under Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by
Republic Act No. 7659, the penalty of reclusion
Appellant vigorously contends that the trial court perpetua to death and a fine ranging from
should have sustained his unrebutted testimony ₱500,000.00 to ₱10,000,000.00 shall be
that he was a victim of frame-up contrived by imposed if the quantity of marijuana or Indian
Takeshi in connivance with the arresting hemp shall be 750 grams or more.22 Section 63
officers, especially C/Inspector Ernesto of the Revised Penal Code provides that when
Alcantara, accused in several criminal charges. the law prescribes a penalty composed of two
indivisible penalties, the lesser penalty shall be
It is noteworthy that aside from appellant’s applied in the absence of any aggravating or
testimony, not a shred of evidence was mitigating circumstance. 23
presented by the defense to prove his claim that
he was framed-up. Not even Pinky who In the case at bar, there being no mitigating or
allegedly gave him the box of piaya containing aggravating circumstance, appellant’s
24
marijuana was presented as a witness to possession of 1,547.70 grams of marijuana
confirm his story. We have ruled that clear and does not merit the supreme penalty of death but
convincing evidence is required to prove the only reclusion perpetua.
defense of "frame-up" because in the absence
of proof of any intent on the part of the police While the imposition of a fine is mandatory in
authorities to falsely impute such crime against cases of conviction of possession of illegal
appellant, the presumption of regularity in the drugs,25 we, however, reduce the fine imposed
performance of official duty stands.19 Also, by the trial court to ₱1,000,000.00, considering
allegations of frame-up are easily fabricated, that courts may fix any amount within the limits
making it the common and standard line of established by law.26
defense in prosecutions involving the
Dangerous Drugs Law.20 WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 45, Bacolod City in Criminal
We are not swayed by appellant’s reference to Case No. 94-16100 finding appellant Hedishi
C/Inspector Alcantara’s criminal records. Suzuki guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
Suffice it to state that he is neither an accused violation of Section 8, Article II of R.A. No. 6425,
in this case or a prosecution witness. as amended, is hereby AFFIRMED with the
MODIFICATION in the sense that he is
We have carefully reviewed the records and sentenced to reclusion perpetuaand fined One
found no cogent reason to overthrow the Million (₱1,000,000.00) Pesos.
findings of fact and conclusions of law by the
trial court. That this is a matter exclusively within Costs de oficio. SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 185719 June 17, 2013 the accused, conspiring and confederating
together and both of them mutually helping and
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF- aiding one another, not being lawfully
APPELLEE, authorized by law, did then and there willfully,
vs. unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver and give
MARCELINO COLLADO Y CUNANAN, MYRA away to PO2 Richard N. Noble, a police poseur
COLLADO Y SENICA, MARK CIPRIANO Y buyer, one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic
ROCERO, SAMUEL SHERWIN LATARIO Y sachet containing three (3) centigrams (0.03
ENRIQUE,* AND REYNALDO RANADA Y gram) of white crystalline substance, which was
ALAS**, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS. found positive to the test for
methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a
DECISION dangerous drug, in violation of the said law.
DEL CASTILLO, J.: Contrary to law.3
Mere allegations and self-serving statements CRIMINAL CASE NO. 13782-D

will not overcome the presumption of regularity
in the performance of official duties accorded to On or about or immediately prior to October 9,
police officers. There must be a showing of clear 2004, in Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction of
and convincing evidence to successfully rebut this Honorable Court, the accused, conspiring
this presumption. and confederating together and both of them
mutually helping and aiding one another, did
On appeal is the February 28, 2008 Decision1 of then and there willfully, unlawfully and
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. feloniously maintain a den, dive or resort located
No. 02626 which affirmed with modification the at No. 32 R. Hernandez St., Brgy. San Joaquin,
December 7, 2005 Decision2 of the Regional Pasig City, where x x x dangerous drugs are
Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 154 in used or sold in any form, in violation of the said
Criminal Case Nos. 13781-D, 13783-D and law.
13784-D. The RTC convicted the appellants and
several other accused for violations of Republic Contrary to law.4
Act (RA) No. 9165 or the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and imposed Marcelino was also charged with illegal
upon them the penalty of imprisonment and possession of dangerous drugs under Section
payment of fine in each of their respective 11, Article II of the same law docketed as
cases. Criminal Case No. 13783-D, viz:
Factual Antecedents CRIMINAL CASE NO. 13783-D
On October 14, 2004, appellants Marcelino On or about October 9, 2004, in Pasig City, and
Collado (Marcelino) and Myra Collado (Myra) within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
were charged with the crimes of sale of the accused, not being lawfully authorized to
dangerous drugs and maintenance of a den, possess any dangerous drug, did then and there
dive or resort in violation of Sections 5 and 6 of willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his
Article II, RA 9165 docketed as Criminal Case possession and under his custody and control
Nos. 13781-D and 13782-D, respectively, viz: one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet
containing six centigrams (0.06 gram) of white
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 13781-D crystalline substance, which was found to be
positive to the test for methylamphetamine
On or about October 9, 2004, in Pasig City, and hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in violation of
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said law.
Contrary to law.5 h. one (1) rectangular glass marked as Exh. D8;

and
On the other hand, appellants Mark Cipriano
(Cipriano), Samuel Sherwin Latario (Latario), i. one (1) roll of aluminum foil marked as Exh.
Reynaldo Ranada (Ranada), together with co- D9.
accused Melody Apelo (Apelo), Marwin Abache
(Abache), Michael Angelo Sumulong [Specimens] marked as Exh-D and Exh-D1
(Sumulong), and Jay Madarang (Madarang), were found positive to the test for
were charged with possession of drug methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a
paraphernalia in violation of Section 14, Article dangerous drug, in violation of the said law.
II of RA 9165, docketed as Criminal Case No.
13784-D, viz: Contrary to law.6
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 13784-D Upon arraignment on November 4, 2004, all the
appellants and the other accused pleaded not
On or about October 9, 2004, in Pasig City, and guilty.7 Pre-trial and joint trial on the merits
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, subsequently ensued.
the accused, each being in the proximate
company of two (2) persons and in conspiracy Version of the Prosecution
with one another, without having been duly
authorized by law, did then and there willfully, The prosecution presented as witnesses PO2
unlawfully and feloniously have in their Richard Noble (PO2 Noble) and SPO2
possession and under their custody and control Bernardo Cruz (SPO2 Cruz) who were involved
the following paraphernalias [sic], fit or intended in the buy-bust operation that led to the arrest of
for smoking, consuming, administering or the appellants. Their testimonies are
introducing any dangerous drug into the body, summarized as follows:
to wit:
On October 9, 2004, PO2 Noble received
a. one (1) strip aluminum foil containing traces information from a civilian asset that spouses
of white crystalline substance marked as Exh-D; Marcelino and Myra were engaged in selling
shabu and that drug users, including out-of-
b. one (1) improvised glass tooter containing school youth, were using their residence in 32
traces of white crystalline substance marked as R. Hernandez St., San Joaquin, Pasig City, for
Exh-D1; their drug sessions.8 After recording the report
in the police blotter, PO2 Noble relayed the
c. one (1) pack transparent plastic sachet information to his superior, P/Insp. Earl B.
marked as Exh-D2; Castillo (P/Insp. Castillo), who in turn ordered
the conduct of a surveillance operation.9 PO2
d. two (2) plastic disposable lighters marked as Noble, SPO2 Cruz and PO1 Anthony Bitbit,
Exhs. "G-H"; conducted a surveillance on the couple’s
residence. After confirming the reported
e. one (1) tape-sealed transparent plastic activities, SPO2 Cruz looked for an asset who
sachet containing three (3) rolled aluminum foil could introduce them to Marcelino and Myra in
marked as Exh. D5; the ensuing buy-bust operation.10
f. five (5) unsealed transparent plastic sachets A buy-bust operation team was thereafter
marked as Exh. D6; formed. After coordinating with the Philippine
Drug Enforcement Agency as evidenced by a
g. one (1) stainless scissor marked as Exh. D7; Pre-Operation Report,11 the team proceeded to
Marcelino’s and Myra’s residence on board two
private vehicles. Upon reaching the target area, Version of the Defense
the asset introduced PO2 Noble to Marcelino as
a regular buyer of shabu.12 When asked how The defense presented the testimonies of
much shabu he needed, PO2 Noble replied, Marcelino, Myra, and Ranada, who all
"dalawang piso," which means ₱200.00 worth of essentially put up the defense of denial. The
drugs. But when PO2 Noble was handing over following is their version of the story.
the marked money to Marcelino, the latter
motioned that the same be given to his wife, Marcelino and Myra owned an electronics and
Myra, who accepted the money. Marcelino then appliance repair shop annexed to their house. In
took from his pocket a small metal container the evening of October 9, 2004, Marcelino was
from which he brought out a small plastic sachet in the living room with his children and nieces
containing white crystalline substance and gave fixing a VCD player. Apelo, their househelp, was
the same to PO2 Noble. While PO2 Noble was in the kitchen preparing food while Ranada, their
inspecting its contents, he noticed smoke repairman, was outside the house fixing
coming from a table inside the house of the Sumulong’s motorcycle. Cipriano and
couple around which were seven Madarang were also present at the shop, the
persons.13 When PO2 Noble gave the pre- former to redeem his car stereo and the latter to
arranged signal, the backup team rushed to the borrow a play station CD. Latario, a housemate
scene. Simultaneously, PO2 Noble introduced of Marcelino and Myra, was also present at the
himself as a policeman and arrested Marcelino. time.
He frisked him and was able to confiscate the
metal container that contained another sachet of Marcelino suddenly heard someone say
white crystalline substance. PO2 Noble wrote "Walang tatakbo!" Four armed men rushed
the markings "MCC-RNN October 9, 2004" on inside the house and pointed their guns at him
both the plastic sachets of white substance sold and said "Wag ka nang pumalag." He was
to him by Marcelino and the one found inside the thereafter dragged outside where he saw the
metal container. other accused already in handcuffs. Marcelino
was later informed that they were being arrested
Meanwhile, SPO2 Cruz and another police for selling shabu. Marcelino protested and
officer went inside the house of Marcelino and disclaimed any knowledge about drugs. When
Myra, where they found Apelo, Cipriano, the officers frisked all the accused, Marcelino
Ranada, Abache, Sumulong, Madarang and claimed that nothing illegal nor incriminating
Latario gathered around a table littered with was recovered from them.
various drug paraphernalia such as an
improvised water pipe, strips of aluminum foil When Myra arrived at the scene, she was
with traces of white substance, disposable shocked to see her husband being arrested.
lighters, and plastic sachets. A strip of aluminum The police officers then brought all the accused
foil used for smoking marijuana was recovered to the police station for further questioning.
from Ranada. The buy-bust team arrested all
these persons, advised them of their At the police station, PO2 Noble asked
constitutional rights, and brought them to police Marcelino for ₱50,000.00 as settlement of their
headquarters for investigation and drug testing. case. Marcelino, Apelo, Cipriano, and Ranada
were also made to drink water that according to
A chemistry report14 on all the seized items Marcelino tasted bitter.16 They were then
yielded positive results for methylamphetamine brought to Camp Crame for medical
hydrochloride. Another chemistry examination and drug tests. Those who drank
report15 showed Marcelino, Apelo, Cipriano, and the bitter water tested positive for drugs use
Ranada positive for drug use while Myra, while the others, who did not drink, tested
Abache, Sumulong, Madarang, and Latario negative.
were found negative.
Marcelino surmised that their arrest was due to In Crim. Case No. 13784-D, judgment is hereby
a misunderstanding he had with a former police rendered finding the accused MELODY APELO
officer named Rey who bought a VCD player y Roman, MARK CIPRIANO y Rocero,
from his shop. He specifically instructed Rey not MARWIN ABACHE y Aquilino, MICHAEL
to let anyone repair the VCD player should it ANGELO SUMULONG y Belarmino, JAY
malfunction. However, when the VCD player MADARANG y Gomez, SAMUEL SHERWIN
malfunctioned, Rey had it repaired by LATARIO y Enrique and REYNALDO RANADA
somebody else, hence Marcelino refused to y Alas GUILTY of the offense of violation of
accept the VCD player and return Rey’s money. Section 14 of R.A. 9165 and they are hereby
This earned the ire of Rey who threatened him sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of
with the words "Humanda ka pagbalik ko."17 TWO (2) YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS and
ONE (1) DAY to FOUR (4) YEARS
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court imprisonment. Each of them is also ordered to
pay a fine of TEN THOUSAND PESOS
In its Decision18 dated December 7, 2005, the (₱10,000.00).
RTC disposed of the case as follows:
Let the shabu and paraphernalia alleged to be
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment the subject[s] of the Information be turned over
is hereby rendered as follows: and delivered immediately to the Philippine
Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for proper
In Crim. Case No. 13781-D, finding the accused disposition.
MARCELINO COLLADO y Cunanan and MYRA
COLLADO y Senica GUILTY beyond SO ORDERED.19
reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of
Section 5 of R.A. 9165 (sale of dangerous drug) Accused Apelo, Abache, Sumulong and
and they are hereby sentenced to suffer the Madarang applied for probation.20 Hence, only
penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT. Marcelino, Myra, Cirpriano, Latario and Ranada
appealed to the CA.21
Additionally, the two accused are ordered to pay
a fine of ONE MILLION PESOS Ruling of the Court of Appeals
(₱1,000,000.00) EACH.
The appellate court found the warrantless arrest
In Crim. Case No. 13782-D, judgment is of the appellants to be lawful considering that
rendered finding the accused MARCELINO they were caught in the act of committing a
COLLADO y Cunanan and MYRA COLLADO y crime.22 Thus, the CA affirmed the conviction of
Senica NOT GUILTY of the crime of violation of Marcelino and Myra for violation of Section 5 of
Section 6. RA 9165 (sale of dangerous drugs), as well as
the conviction of Marcelino for violation of
In Crim. Case No. 13783-D, finding the accused Section 11 of RA 9165 (illegal possession of
MARCELINO COLLADO y Cunanan GUILTY of dangerous drugs). Anent the violation of Section
the offense of violation of Section 11 of R.A. 14 of RA 9165 (possession of drug
9165 and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the paraphernalia), the CA affirmed the conviction
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of of Ranada as he was caught having custody
TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY to and control of a drug paraphernalia intended for
FIFTEEN (15) YEARS. smoking and injecting illegal drugs into one’s
body.23 As regards Cipriano and Latario, as well
The accused Marcelino Collado is also ordered as the other accused Apelo, Abache, Sumulong
to pay a fine of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND and Madarang, the CA found them guilty not as
PESOS (₱300,000.00). principals but only as accessories.
Thus, the appellate court affirmed with convincing evidence to overturn the
modification the trial court’s Decision through a same.
Decision24 dated February 28, 2008, the
dispositive portion of which states: Appellants question the validity of the buy-bust
operation and point out the following
WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision is irregularities which they claim attended its
AFFIRMED with respect to the conviction and conduct: (1) lack of warrant of arrest; (2) non-
imposition of the respective penalties against compliance with the procedures laid down under
the following: (A) appellants Marcelino Collado Section 21 of RA 9165; and, (3) the alleged
and Myra Collado in Crim. Case No. 13781- extortion of money from them by PO2 Noble in
D25 for violation of Section 5, Article II, RA No. exchange for dropping the charges against
9165; (B) appellant Marcelino Collado in Crim. them. Due to these irregularities, appellants
Case No. 13783-D for violation of Section 11, argue that the presumption of regularity in the
Article II, RA No. 9165; (C) appellant Reynaldo performance of official duties accorded to police
Ranada in Crim. Case No. 13784-D for violation officers does not apply in this case.
of Section 14, Article II, RA No. 9165.
Lack of a warrant of arrest
In Crim. Case No. 13784-D, MODIFICATION is
hereby ordered as to appellants Mark Cipriano Appellants argue that the arrest, search, and
and Samuel Sherwin Latario, including co- seizure conducted by the police were illegal
accused Melody Apelo, Marwin Abache, since it was not supported by a valid warrant.
Michael Angelo Sumulong and Jay Madarang – They thus posit that their right to be secure in
insofar as they were found GUILTY, not as their persons, houses, papers, and effects
principals, but as ACCESSORIES in the offense against unreasonable searches and seizures
of violation of Section 14, Article II of RA No. was violated.27
9165, in relation to the aforecited provision of
the Revised Penal Code. Each of them shall Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court
suffer the straight penalty of Four (4) Months of provides for lawful warrantless arrests, viz:
arresto mayor. The fine of Ten Thousand Pesos
already imposed by the trial court upon each of Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. -- A
them is MAINTAINED. peace officer or a private person may, without a
warrant, arrest a person:
SO ORDERED.26
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be
Not satisfied, the appellants are now before this arrested has committed, is actually committing,
Court arguing that irregularities attended their or is attempting to commit an offense;
arrest and detention as well as the procedure in
handling the specimen allegedly seized from (b) When an offense has in fact just been
them. Because of these, they assert that their committed and he has probable cause to
guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. believe based on personal knowledge of facts or
circumstances that the person to be arrested
Our Ruling has committed it; and
The appealed Decision should be affirmed, with (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner
modification. who escaped from a penal establishment or
place where he is serving final judgment or
The presumption of regularity in the temporarily confined while his case is pending,
performance of official duties must or has escaped while being transferred from one
be upheld in the absence of clear and confinement to another.
Section 5(a) is what is known as arrest in person lawfully arrested may be searched for
flagrante delicto. For this type of warrantless dangerous weapons or anything which may
arrest to be valid, two requisites must concur: have been used or constitute proof in the
"(1) the person to be arrested must execute an commission of an offense without a search
overt act indicating that he has just committed, warrant." The factual milieu of this case clearly
is actually committing, or is attempting to shows that the search was made after
commit a crime; and, (2) such overt act is done appellants were lawfully arrested. Pursuant to
in the presence or within the view of the the above-mentioned rule, the subsequent
arresting officer."28 A common example of an search and seizure made by the police officers
arrest in flagrante delicto is one made after were likewise valid. Hence, appellants’ claim of
conducting a buy-bust operation. unreasonable search and seizure must
fail.1âwphi1
This is precisely what happened in the present
case. The arrest of the appellants was an arrest Extortion
in flagrante delicto made in pursuance of Sec.
5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. The arrest Appellants aver that PO2 Noble tried to extort
was effected after Marcelino and Myra money from them in exchange for dropping the
performed the overt act of selling to PO2 Noble drug charges against them.
the sachet of shabu and Ranada of having in his
control and custody illegal drug paraphernalia. The defense of extortion and/or frame-up is
Thus, there is no other logical conclusion than often put up in drugs cases in order to cast doubt
that the arrest made by the police officers was a on the credibility of police officers. This is a
valid warrantless arrest since the same was serious imputation of a crime hence clear and
made while the appellants were actually convincing evidence must be presented to
committing the said crimes. support the same. There must also be a
showing that the police officers were inspired by
Moreover, assuming that irregularities indeed improper motive. In this case, we find such
attended the arrest of appellants, they can no imputation unfounded.
longer question the validity thereof as there is
no showing that they objected to the same In People v. Capalad,33 this Court held thus:
before their arraignment. Neither did they take
steps to quash the Informations on such Charges of extortion and frame-up are
ground.29 They only raised this issue upon their frequently made in this jurisdiction. Courts are,
appeal to the appellate court. By this omission, thus, cautious in dealing with such accusations,
any objections on the legality of their arrest are which are quite difficult to prove in light of the
deemed to have been waived by them.30 presumption of regularity in the performance of
the police officers’ duties. To substantiate such
Anent their claim of unreasonable search and defense, which can be easily concocted, the
seizure, it is true that under the Constitution, "a evidence must be clear and convincing and
search and consequent seizure must be carried should show that the members of the buy-bust
out with a judicial warrant; otherwise, it becomes team were inspired by any improper motive or
unreasonable and any evidence obtained were not properly performing their duty.
therefrom shall be inadmissible for any purpose Otherwise, the police officers’ testimonies on
in any proceeding."31 This proscription, the operation deserve full faith and credit.
however, admits of exceptions, one of which is
a warrantless search incidental to a lawful Here, aside from Marcelino’s self-serving
arrest.32 testimony, appellants’ claim of extortion is not
substantiated by other convincing evidence.
The arrest of the appellants was lawful. Under Neither was it established during trial that PO2
Section 13, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, "[a] Noble or the other members of the buy-bust
team were impelled by improper motive. This rule is elaborated in Section 21(a), Article II
Appellants’ allegation that PO2 Noble and his of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of
team arrested them because of Marcelino’s RA 9165, viz:
previous misunderstanding with a certain retired
policeman named Rey deserves no credence. a) The apprehending officer/team having initial
No evidence was presented to show any custody and control of the drugs shall,
connection between Rey and the buy-bust immediately after seizure and confiscation,
team. It was not even shown by the defense who physically inventory and photograph the same
this person Rey really is. Also, it is highly in the presence of the accused or the person/s
unlikely that a team of police officers would from whom such items were confiscated and/or
pursue a surveillance, conduct a buy-bust seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a
operation, and arrest all the accused for a representative from the media and the
measly ₱1,000.00 VCD player. In view of these, Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected
appellants’ allegation of extortion and improper public official who shall be required to sign the
motive deserves no credence. copies of the inventory and be given a copy
thereof: Provided, that the physical inventory
Chain of Custody and photograph shall be conducted at the place
where the search warrant is served; or at the
Appellants argue that the procedure laid down nearest police station or at the nearest office of
in Section 21 of RA 9165 was not followed. They the apprehending officer/ team, whichever is
specifically harp on the fact that the confiscated practicable, in case of warrantless seizure;
drugs were not photographed and inventoried. Provided, further, that non-compliance with
Moreover, they contend that the police officers these requirements under justifiable grounds, as
who handled the seized specimen were not long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of
presented in court to testify on the condition in the seized items are properly preserved by the
which they received the said specimen. For the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void
appellants, these defects constitute a clear and invalid such seizures of and custody over
break in the chain of custody and, consequently, said items. (Emphasis supplied)
the prosecution failed to establish corpus
delicti.34 Pursuant to the above-cited provisions, this
Court has consistently ruled that the failure of
The Court, however, finds this argument the police officers to inventory and photograph
unmeritorious. the confiscated items are not fatal to the
prosecution’s cause,35 provided that the
Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of RA 9165 integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
provides for the custody and disposition of the substance were preserved, as in this case.
confiscated drugs, to wit: Here, PO2 Noble, after apprehending Marcelino
and confiscating from him the sachets of shabu,
(1) The apprehending officer/team having initial immediately placed his markings on them. He
custody and control of the drugs shall, testified thus:
immediately after seizure and confiscation,
physically inventory and photograph the same PROSECUTOR PAZ:
in the presence of the accused or the person/s
from whom such items were confiscated and/or Q: What did you do with that sachet containing
seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a white substance that was bought from Marcelino
representative from the media and the and the one that you were able to confiscate
Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected from him?
public official who shall be required to sign the
copies of the inventory and be given a copy A: I put my markings.
thereof;
Q: What were those markings? x x x and nothing was found in the possession
of the other accused, this fact nonetheless does
A: MCC-RNN October 9, 2004.36 not render Reynaldo Ranada the only person
liable for violation of Section 14. [Take note] that
In the Request for Laboratory Examination37 the the law speaks not only of possession but also
seized items were listed and inventoried. After of having under one’s control the paraphernalia
the conduct of the laboratory examination, intended for smoking. In the instant case, the
Chemistry Report No. D-807-0438 revealed that paraphernalia were found by the police on top of
the contents of the said sachets tested positive the table around which the accused were
for methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. gathered. Hence, even if the x x x accused other
than Ranada did not have in their possession
Moreover, it is of no moment that Forensic any of the paraphernalia, it can, however, be
Chemist Alejandro De Guzman who conducted said that the paraphernalia found on top of the
the laboratory examination was not presented table were under their control. x x x42
as a witness. The non-presentation as
witnesses of other persons who had custody of Thus, the RTC found Ranada, Cipriano, Latario,
the illegal drugs is not a crucial point against the Apelo Abache, Sumulong and Madarang all
prosecution.39 There is no requirement for the equally guilty of illegal possession of drug
prosecution to present as witness in a drugs paraphernalia.
case every person who had something to do
with the arrest of the accused and the seizure of On appeal, however, the CA found Ranada
the prohibited drugs from him.40 To stress, the guilty as principal while Cipriano, Latario, Apelo,
implementing rules are clear that non- Abache, Sumulong and Madarang were
compliance with the requirements under adjudged as accessories only for the crime of
justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and illegal possession of drug paraphernalia. The
the evidentiary value of the seized items are CA ratiocinated thus:
properly preserved by the apprehending
officer/team, shall not render void and invalid On the one hand, we sustain the conviction of
such seizures of and custody over said items.41 Rañada in Crim. Case 13784-D. He was
actually caught having custody and control of
Criminal Case No. 13784-D the confiscated drug paraphenalia intended for
smoking, injecting, etc. into one’s body. It was
With regard to Criminal Case No. 13784-D for also indubitably shown that he failed to present
illegal possession of drug paraphernalia, we find authority to possess the prohibited articles,
it imperative to re-examine the findings of both much less, an explanation of his possession
the RTC and the CA. thereof. However, as regards the other accused
who were seen in the company of Rañada, the
The RTC’s findings are as follows: evidence of conspiracy against them was
insufficient.
The evidence for the prosecution clearly shows
that certain things or paraphernalia which are fit To hold an accused guilty as co-principal by
or intended [for] smoking shabu were found in reason of conspiracy, he must be shown to have
the house of the accused Marcelino and Myra performed an overt act in pursuance or
Collado on the same occasion that the said furtherance of the complicity. Responsibility of a
spouses were arrested by the police officers. conspirator is not confined to the
This fact makes all the accused without accomplishment of a particular purpose of
exception liable for violation of Section 14. While conspiracy but extends to collateral acts and
it was only Reynaldo Ranada who was caught offenses incident to and growing out of the
having in his possession an item used in purpose intended.
smoking marijuana, i.e., a strip of aluminum foil
It may be that appellants Mark Cipriano and In addition, Section 98 of RA 9165 specifically
Samuel Sherwin Latario and co-accused provides that "[n]otwithstanding any law, rule or
Melody Apelo, Marwin Abache, Michael Angelo regulation to the contrary, the provisions of the
Sumulong, Jay Madarang were in close Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3814), as
proximity [to] Rañada at the time and place of amended, shall not apply to the provisions of
the incident. But mere presence at the scene of this Act, except in the case of minor offenders.
the crime does not imply conspiracy. The Where the offender is a minor, the penalty for
prosecution failed to show specific overt acts acts punishable by life imprisonment to death
that would link these accused to Ranada’s provided herein shall be reclusion perpetua to
possession of the said contrabands. As to why death." It is therefore clear that the provisions of
they were there [in] the vicinity of the crime the Revised Penal Code, particularly Article 19
scene was not explained. They could be mere on Accessories, cannot be applied in
innocent onlookers although they were aware of determining the degree of participation and
the illegality of the principal’s acts. criminal liability of Ranada’s co-accused.
In any event, appellants Cipriano and Latario At any rate, this Court is convinced that only
and the rest of the accused cannot be totally Ranada should be held liable for violation of
exonerated.1âwphi1 [However, we] downgrade Section 14 of RA 9165. It is clear that it was only
their culpability corresponding to their criminal Ranada who was caught having in his
design and participation. Evidently, they are possession an aluminum foil intended for using
guilty as accessories who, according to dangerous drugs.45 As to the other co-accused,
paragraph 1, Article 19 of the Revised Penal namely Apelo, Abache, Cipriano, Latario,
Code, are criminally liable by ‘profiting Madarang, and Sumulong, not one drug
themselves or assisting the offender to profit by paraphernalia was found in their possession.
the effects of the crime’.43 The police officers were only able to find the
other drug paraphernalia scattered on top of a
We find that the CA erred in convicting Cipriano, table. It is already established that there was no
Latario, Apelo, Abache, Sumulong and conspiracy between Ranada and the other co-
Madarang as accessories. As pointed out by accused. As the CA correctly held, mere
Justice Arturo D. Brion: presence at the scene of the crime does not
imply conspiracy.46
"[I]llegal possession of equipment, instrument,
apparatus and other paraphernalia for PO2 Noble, when placed on the witness stand,
dangerous drugs during parties, social only testified as follows:
gatherings or meetings under Section 14 of R.A.
No. 9165 is a crime of malum prohibitum, that is, A-
the act is made wrong or evil because there is a
law prohibiting it. x x x While I was checking the item that I bought, I
saw several persons inside their house.
Since violation of Section 14 of R.A. No. 9165 is
a crime of mala prohibita, the degree of Q-
participation of the offenders is not considered.
All who perpetrated the prohibited act are What were these persons doing?
penalized to the same extent. There is no
principal or accomplice or accessory to A-
consider. In short, the degree of participation of
the offenders does not affect their liability, and Some were seated, some were standing and
the penalty on all of them are the same whether there was x x x smoke.
they are principals or merely accomplices or
accessories.44 Q-
Where was this smoke coming from? What about those who were standing, what
were they doing?
A-
A-
I did not see where the smoke [was] coming
from because some of the persons were The persons who were standing were looking at
blocking [my view]. the persons who were sitting. I could not see
them clearly because some of them were
Q- blocking my view.
About how many persons were inside who were Q-

seated and who were standing?
How far were they, those who were seated and
A- those who were standing?
Seven (7). A-
Q- They were close to each other.
Will you tell us if they are male or female or Q-

both?
How long did you take a look at these persons
A- inside the house?
Six (6) male persons and one (1) female. A-
Q- Only for a while, only for a glance, sir.47
What are these persons who were seated inside On the other hand, SPO2 Bernardo Cruz
the house doing? testified that it was only Ranada who was
caught holding the aluminum foil, viz:
A-
Q-
They were allegedly engaged in drug session.
How about the aluminum foil that you recovered
COURT: from another?
Q- A-
What do you mean allegedly? I saw him holding the strip of aluminum foil, sir.
A- Q-
Because there was smoke and I did not see So, nothing was confiscated in the person of all
what they were using. other accused except for Ranada?
PROSECUTOR PAZ: A-
Q- Yes, sir.48
Therefore, Apelo, Abache, Cipriano, Latario,

Madarang, and Sumulong should be acquitted
of the charge of violation of Section 14, RA 9165
on possession of equipment, instrument,
apparatus and other paraphernalia for
dangerous drugs.
All told, this Court upholds the presumption of

regularity in the performance of official duties by
the police officers involved in this case. The
defense was not able to show by clear and
convincing evidence why the presumption
should be overturned. The prosecution, on the
other hand, was able to establish that Marcelino,
Myra and Ranada committed the crimes
imputed against them, they having been caught
in flagrante delicto. This Court, being convinced
that the guilt of Marcelino, Myra, and Ranada
have been proven beyond reasonable doubt,
must uphold their conviction.
As to Apelo, Abache, Cipriano, Latario,

Madarang, and Sumulong, the Court finds that
they should be acquitted of the offense of
violation of Section 14, Article II, RA 9165, since
the prosecution was not able to clearly show
specific overt acts that would prove that they
were in possession of drug paraphernalia.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is PARTLY

GRANTED. The February 28, 2008 Decision of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No.
02626 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that
appellants Mark Cipriano and Samuel Sherwin
Latario, including co-accused Melody Apelo,
Marwin Abache, Michael Angelo Sumulong, and
Jay Madarang are hereby ACQUITTED of the
crime of violation of Section 14, Article II of
Republic Act No. 9165. They are ordered
released unless they are being lawfully held for
some other cause.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 196966 October 23, 2013 The undersigned accuses PHANS BANDALI y
SIMPAL for Violation of Section 5, Article II, R.A.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff- 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
Appellee, 2002), committed as follows:
vs.
MICHAEL MAONGCO y YUMONDA and That on or about the 19th day of June, 2004 in
PHANS BANDALI y SIMPAL, Accused- Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, not
Appellants. being authorized by law to sell, dispense,
deliver, transport or distribute any dangerous
DECISION drug, did, then and there willfully and unlawfully
dispense, deliver, transport, distribute or act as
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.: broker in the said transaction, four point forty-
five (4.45) grams of Methylamphetamine
On appeal is the Decision1 dated September 6, hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.4
2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-
H.C. No. 03505, which affirmed in toto the When arraigned on September 13, 2004, both
Decision2 dated June 11, 2008 of the Regional accused-appellants pleaded not guilty. 5
Trial Court RTC), Branch 82, Quezon City, in
Criminal Case Nos. Q-04-127731-32, finding During trial, the prosecution presented the
accused-appellants Michael Y. Maongco testimonies of Police Officer (PO) 1 Dominador
Maongco) and Phans S. Bandali Bandali) guilty Arugay (Arugay)6 and PO2 Vener Ong
beyond reasonable doubt of violating Article II, (Ong),7 who arrested accused-appellants. The
Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise testimonies of Police Inspector (P/Insp.)
known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Erickson Calabocal (Calabocal),8 the forensic
chemist, and Senior Police Officer (SPO) 1
Accused-appellants were separately charged Adonis Sugui (Sugui),9 the post investigating
for illegally dispensing, delivering, transporting, officer, were dispensed with after the defense
distributing, or acting as brokers of dangerous agreed to a stipulation of the substance of the
drugs under the following amended two witnesses’ testimonies, but with the
Informations: qualification that said witnesses had no
personal knowledge of the circumstances
[Criminal Case No. Q-04-127731] surrounding accused-appellants’ arrest and the
source of the plastic sachets of shabu.
The undersigned accuses MICHAEL
MAONGCO y YUMONDA for Violation of The object and documentary evidence of the
Section 5, Article II, R.A. 9165 (Comprehensive prosecution, all admitted by the
10
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), committed as RTC, consisted of the Request for Laboratory
follows: Examination;11 an Improvised Envelope
containing the plastic sachets of suspected
That on or about the 19th day of June, 2004 in methamphetamine hydrochloride, more
Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, not popularly known as shabu;12 P/Insp.
being authorized by law to sell, dispense, Calabocal’s Chemistry Report No. D-360-
deliver, transport or distribute any dangerous 04;13 P/Insp. Calabocal’s Certification14 stating
drug, did, then and there willfully and unlawfully that the contents of the plastic sachets tested
dispense, deliver, transport, distribute or act as positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride;
broker in the said transaction, four point fifty PO1 Arugay’s Sinumpaang Salaysay;15 PO2
(4.50) grams of Methylamphetamine Ong’s Sinumpaang Salaysay;16 and the Referral
hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.3 of the case to the Prosecutor’s Office of Quezon
City.17
[Criminal Case No. Q-04-127732]
The prosecution’s evidence presented the and apprised the latter of his constitutional
following version of the events leading to rights.
accused-appellants’ arrests.
When the police team questioned accused-
Based on a tip from a confidential informant, the appellant Maongco as to the other " bulto " of
Station Anti-Illegal Drugs of the Navotas City shabu Carpio had ordered, accussed-appellant
Police conducted a special operation on June disclosed that the same was in the possession
18, 2004, which resulted in the arrest of a certain of accused-appellant Bandali, who was then at
Alvin Carpio (Carpio) for illegal possession of Jollibee Pantranco branch along Quezon
dangerous drugs and seizure from Carpio’s Avenue. The police team, with Carpio and
possession of 15 heat-sealed plastic sachets accused-appellant Maongco, went to the said
containing shabu . When questioned by the restaurant where accused-appellant Maongco
police, Carpio admitted that the shabu came identified accused-appellant Bandali to the
from accused-appellant Maongco. police team as the one wearing a blue shirt. PO2
Consequently, the police planned an operation Ong approached accused-appellant Bandali
to apprehend accused-appellant Maongco and and demanded from the latter the other half of
formed a team for this purpose, composed of the drugs ordered. Accused-appellant Bandali
PO1 Arugay, PO2 Ong, PO2 Geoffrey Huertas voluntarily handed over a sachet of shabu to
(Huertas), and PO1 Jesus del Fierro (Del PO2 Ong. Thereafter, PO2 Ong apprised
Fierro). accused-appellant Bandali of his constitutional
rights and arrested him.
On June 19, 2004, after coordination with the
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), The police team first brought accused-
the police team was briefed about the operation. appellants to the East Avenue Medical Center
The police team allowed Carpio to talk to for medical examination to prove that accused-
accused-appellant Maongco on the cellphone to appellants sustained no physical injuries during
arrange for a sale transaction of shabu. At their apprehension. Afterwards, the police team
around 10:30 in the morning, the police team, brought accused-appellants to the police station
accompanied and guided by Carpio, proceeded in Navotas City. At the police station, PO1
to the vicinity of Quezon corner Roces Avenues Arugay marked the sachet of shabu from
in Quezon City frequented by accused-appellant accused-appellant Maongco with the initials
Maongco. PO1 Arugay, PO2 Ong, and Carpio "MMY," while PO2 Ong marked the sachet of
rode a taxi, while PO1 Del Fierro and PO2 shabu from accused-appellant Bandali with the
Huertas followed in an owner-type jeep. Carpio initials "PBS." PO1 Arugay and PO2 Ong turned
spotted accused-appellant Maongco at a over the two sachets of shabu to the custody of
waiting shed and pointed out the latter to the PO1 Del Fierro and SPO1 Sugui. The sachets
police. PO2 Arugay alighted from the taxi and of shabu were then inventoried, photographed
approached accused-appellant Maongco. PO2 in the presence of accused-appellants, and
Arugay introduced himself to accused-appellant submitted for laboratory examination.
Maongco as Carpio’s cousin, and claimed that
Carpio was sick and could not be there P/Insp. Calabocal received the sachets of shabu
personally. PO2 Arugay then asked from for chemical analysis. P/Insp. Calabocal’s
accused-appellant Maongco for Carpio’s order examination revealed that the contents of the
of " dalawang bulto." Accused-appellant sachets marked "MMY" and "PBS" weighed
Maongco drew out from his pocket a sachet of 4.50 grams and 4.45 grams, respectively, and
shabu and showed it to PO2 Arugay. When PO2 both tested positive for methamphetamine
Arugay got hold of the sachet of shabu , he hydrochloride.
immediately revealed that he was a police
officer, arrested accused-appellant Maongco, When the defense’s turn to present evidence
came, the accused-appellants took the witness
stand.18 Accused-appellants asserted that they THE POLICE OFFICERS DESPITE THE
did not know each other prior to their arrests and PATENT IRREGULARITIES IN THE BUY-
they were illegally arrested, extorted for money, BUST OPERATION.
physically beaten, and framed-up by the police.
IV
On June 11, 2008, the RTC promulgated its
Decision finding accused-appellants guilty THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN
beyond reasonable doubt of illegally selling CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS
shabu, penalized under Article II, Section 5 of DESPITE THE PROSECUTION’S FAILURE TO
Republic Act No. 9165, to wit: PROVE THEIR GUILT BEYOND
21
REASONABLE DOUBT.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment
is hereby rendered finding accused MICHAEL Plaintiff-appellee countered in its Brief22 that:
MAONGCO y YUMONDA, accused in Ciminal
Case No. Q-04-127731 and PHANS BANDALI I.
y SIMPAL, accused in Ciminal Case No. Q-04-
127732, both guilty beyond reasonable doubt of THE COURT A QUO PROPERLY ADMITTED
violations of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. THE SHABU IN EVIDENCE.
9165. Accordingly, they are hereby sentenced
to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT II.
and each to pay a fine in the amount of Five
Hundred Thousand (₱500,000.00) Pesos.19 THERE WAS A LEGITIMATE "BUY-BUST"
OPERATION IN THE CASE AT BAR WHICH
Accused-appellants appealed to the Court of RESULTED IN THE LAWFUL ARREST,
Appeals. In their Brief,20 accused-appellants PROSECUTION AND CONVICTION OF
imputed the following errors on the part of the APPELLANTS.
RTC:
III.
I
THE COURT A QUO PROPERLY FOUND
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN APPELLANTS GUILTY BEYOND
GIVING FULL WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIMES
THE PROSECUTION’S EVIDENCE CHARGED.23
NOTWITHSTANDING ITS FAILURE TO
PROVE THE IDENTITY AND INTEGRITY OF In its Decision dated September 6, 2010, the
THE SHABU ALLEGEDLY SEIZED. Court of Appeals found no palpable error in the
judgment of conviction rendered by the RTC
II against accused-appellants and rejected
accused-appellants’ argument that the
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN prosecution failed to establish the factual details
CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS constituting the essential elements of an illegal
DESPITE THE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH sale of dangerous drugs. According to the
THE "OBJECTIVE TEST" IN BUY-BUST appellate court, Article II, Section 5 of Republic
OPERATIONS. Act No. 9165 penalizes not only those who sell
dangerous drugs, but also those who "trade,
III administer, dispense, deliver, give away to
another, distribute, dispatch in transit or
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN UPHOLDING transport any dangerous drug," without being
THE PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY IN authorized by law. In this case, the prosecution
THE PERFORMANCE OF OFFICIAL DUTY BY was able to prove with moral certainty that
accused-appellants were caught in the act of In the case of accused-appellant Maongco, the
illegally delivering, giving away to another, or Court finds that the RTC and the Court of
distributing sachets of shabu. In the end, the Appeals both erred in convicting him in Criminal
Court of Appeals decreed: Case No. Q-04-127731 for the illegal sale of
shabu under Article II, Section 5 of Republic Act
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the No. 9165. The evidence on record does not
instant appeal is DENIED. The assailed support accused-appellant Maongco’s
decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon conviction for said crime, especially considering
City, Branch 82 dated June 11, 2008 convicting the following answers of prosecution witness
appellants for violation of Section 5, Article II of PO1 Arugay during the latter’s cross-
Republic Act No. 9165 is hereby AFFIRMED. examination, practically admitting the lack of
No costs.24 consideration/payment for the sachet of shabu:
Hence, this appeal. Q. What did you tell Michael Maongco?
Since accused-appellants had opted not to file A. I introduced myself as the cousin of Alvin, sir.
any supplemental briefs, the Court considers
the same issues and arguments raised by Q. After that, you immediately arrested him?
accused-appellants before the Court of
Appeals. A. Yes, sir. I first asked my order of shabu.
Accused-appellants stress that for a judgment of Q. In your affidavit, you testified that you asked
conviction for the illegal sale of dangerous one "bulto" of shabu?
drugs, the identities of the buyer and seller, the
delivery of the drugs, and the payment in A. More or less five grams of shabu, sir.
consideration thereof, must all be duly proven.
However, accused-appellants lament that in Q. Did the accused ask any in exchange of that
their case, the prosecution failed to establish by shabu?
evidence these essential elements of the
alleged sale of shabu. Accused-appellants add A. No, sir.
that the prosecution was also unable to show
that the integrity and evidentiary value of the Q. Immediately, you arrested him already?
seized shabu had been preserved in
accordance with Section 21(a) of the A. After I got my order from him, I introduced
Implementing Rules of Republic Act No. 9165. myself as policeman, sir.
Accused-appellants point out that PO1 Arugay
did not mention the time and place of the COURT:
marking of the sachet of shabu purportedly sold
to him by accused-appellant Maongco; while Who gave you that one "bulto" of shabu?
PO2 Ong admitted that he marked the sachet of
shabu he received from accused-appellant A. I have the money but he did not ask it from
Bandali only at the police station. Both PO1 me, your Honor.
Arugay and PO2 Ong merely provided an
obscure account of the marking of the sachets Q. Was there any arrangement between you
of shabu, falling short of the statutory and Maongco as to how much this one "bulto"
requirement that the marking of the seized cost? A. Alvin and Maongco were the ones who
drugs be made immediately after seizure and talked.
confiscation.
xxxx
The appeal is partly meritorious.
Q. Meaning to say, it was Maongco and Alvin Several of the acts enumerated in the foregoing
who talked in Quezon Avenue? provision have been explicitly defined under
Article I, Section 3 of the same statute, viz:
A. They talked over the cellphone.
Section 3. Definitions. As used in this Act, the
xxxx following terms shall mean:
Q. But you did not hear the conversation? (a) Administer. – Any act of introducing any
dangerous drug into the body of any person,
A. No, sir.25 (Emphases supplied.) with or without his/her knowledge, by injection,
inhalation, ingestion or other means, or of
Inarguably, consideration/payment is one of the committing any act of indispensable assistance
essential elements of illegal sale of dangerous to a person in administering a dangerous drug
drugs, without which, accused-appellant to himself/herself unless administered by a duly
Maongco’s conviction for said crime cannot licensed practitioner for purposes of medication.
stand. Nonetheless, accused-appellant
Maongco is still not absolved of criminal liability. xxxx
A review of the Information in Criminal Case No. (k) Deliver. – Any act of knowingly passing a
Q-04-127731 readily reveals that accused- dangerous drug to another, personally or
appellant Maongco was not actually charged otherwise, and by any means, with or without
with illegal sale of shabu. Said Information consideration.
specifically alleged that accused-appellant
Maongco "willfully and unlawfully dispensed, xxxx
delivered, transported, distributed or acted as
broker" in the transaction involving 4.50 grams (m) Dispense. – Any act of giving away, selling
of shabu. These acts are likewise punishable or distributing medicine or any dangerous drug
under Article II, Section 5 of Republic Act No. with or without the use of prescription.
9165.
xxxx
Article II, Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165
provides: (ii) Sell. – Any act of giving away any dangerous
drug and/or controlled precursor and essential
SECTION 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, chemical whether for money or any other
Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and consideration.
Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or
Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. (jj) Trading. – Transactions involving the illegal
– The penalty of life imprisonment to death and trafficking of dangerous drugs and/or controlled
a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand precursors and essential chemicals using
pesos (₱500,000.00) to Ten million pesos electronic devices such as, but not limited to,
(₱10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any text messages, e-mail, mobile or landlines, two-
person, who, unless authorized by law, shall way radios, internet, instant messengers and
sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give chat rooms or acting as a broker in any of such
away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transactions whether for money or any other
transport any dangerous drug, including any consideration in violation of this Act. (Emphasis
and all species of opium poppy regardless of the supplied.)
quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a
broker in any of such transactions. (Emphasis As for the illegal delivery of dangerous drugs, it
supplied.) must be proven that (1) the accused passed on
possession of a dangerous drug to another,
personally or otherwise, and by any means; (2) Q. What happened when you arrived in that
such delivery is not authorized by law; and (3) area?
the accused knowingly made the delivery.
Worthy of note is that the delivery may be A. We went to the place where Michael is always
committed even without consideration. staying and when he arrived he was pointed by
Alvin, sir.
It is not disputed that accused-appellant
Maongco, who was working as a taxi driver at Q. What did you do when Alvin pointed to
the time of his arrest,26 had no authority under Michael?
the law to deliver any dangerous drug. The
existence of the two other elements was A. I pretended to be the cousin of Alvin who was
established by PO1 Arugay’s testimony that going to get the order.
provided the following details:
Q. What happened when you approached this
FISCAL ANTERO: Michael?
Q. Why did you arrest this certain Alvin? A. I asked from him my order of "dalawang
bulto" and he asked me who am I and I told him
A. For violation of R.A. 9165, sir. that I am the cousin of Alvin and that Alvin
cannot come because he was sick, sir.
Q. What happened when you arrested this alias
Alvin? Q. What happened after you said that?
A. We investigated on where the shabu he was A. I asked from him my order and then he took
selling came from. something out from his pocket and he showed it
to me. It was a shabu, sir.
Q. What was the result of your inquiry as to the
source of the shabu? Q. What happened next?
A. We learned that the source came from a A. After I got the order we arrested Michael, sir.
certain Michael, sir.
xxxx
Q. When you found out that the source came
from a certain Michael, what did you do, Mr. ATTY. BARTOLOME:
Witness?
Q. What was Maongco doing at that time?
A. We formed a team and we made a Pre-
Operation Report, sir. A. He was staying in a waiting shed along
Quezon Avenue, sir.
Q. Aside from mentioning about the source as
Michael, what are the other details? Q. What was he doing there?
A. No more, sir. On June 19, 2004 at about A. He was waiting for somebody, sir.
10:30 a.m., our group was dispatched in
Quezon Avenue corner Roces Avenue. Q. Immediately you approached Maongco?
xxxx A. He was pointed by Alvin, sir. I alighted from

the taxi.
Q. What was his reaction when you approached for illegal delivery of shabu under Article II,
him? Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165, given that
the circumstances surrounding the arrest of the
A. He was a bit surprised, sir. latter were radically different from those of the
former.
Q. What did you tell Michael Maongco?
PO2 Ong testified:
A. I introduced myself as the cousin of Alvin, sir.
Q. How did this Arugay arrest this Michael?
Q. After that, you immediately arrested him?
A. I was only a back-up of Arugay, sir.
A. Yes, sir. I first asked my order my shabu.
Q. What did you see, if any?
Q. In your Affidavit, you testified that you asked
one "bulto" of shabu? A. I saw that he recovered one (1) heat-sealed
transparent plastic sachet, sir.
A. More or less five grams of shabu,
sir.27 (Emphases supplied.) Q. He recovered it from whom?
There was a prior arrangement between Carpio A. From Michael Maongco, sir.
and accused-appellant Maongco. When PO1
Arugay appeared for his purportedly indisposed xxxx
cousin, Carpio, and asked for his order of
shabu, accused-appellant Maongco Q. What happened when this man was arrested
immediately understood what PO1 Arugay by Arugay?
meant. Accused-appellant Maongco took out a
sachet of shabu from his pocket and handed A. We looked for the other "bulto" because
over possession of said sachet to PO1 Arugay. according to Michael there were two and it was
in the possession of Phans, sir.
Based on the charges against accused-
appellant Maongco and the evidence presented THE COURT:
by the prosecution, accused-appellant Maongco
is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal Q. Where did you look for him?
delivery of shabu under Article II, Section 5 of
Republic Act No. 9165. A. At Jollibee, Pantranco, your Honor.
For the same reasons cited in the preceding xxxx

paragraphs, the RTC and the Court of Appeals
also erred in convicting accused-appellant Q. Did you find him in Jollibee?
Bandali for the crime of illegal sale of shabu in
Criminal Case No. Q-04-127732. A. Yes, your Honor, because according to
Michael Maongco he was wearing blue T-shirt.
The Information against accused-appellant
Bandali, same as that against accused- Q. What did you do when you found him at
appellant Maongco, charged him with "willfully Jollibee?
and unlawfully dispensing, delivering,
transporting, distributing or acting as broker" in A. I went near him and asked him to put out the
the transaction involving 4.45 grams of shabu . other shabu in his possession, your Honor.
However, unlike accused-appellant Maongco,
accused-appellant Bandali cannot be convicted
Q. You yourself? A. Yes, sir.29 (Emphases supplied.)
A. My companions were just there, your Honor. In accused-appellant Bandali’s case, it cannot
be said that he knowingly passed on the sachet
Q. You yourself approached him? of shabu in his possession to PO2 Ong. PO2
Ong approached accused-appellant Bandali as
A. Yes, your Honor. a police officer, absent any pretense, and
demanded that the latter bring out the other
Q. When you demanded the production of sachet of shabu. Accused-appellant Bandali’s
what? voluntary production of the sachet of shabu in
his possession was in subservience to PO2
A. One (1) bulto of shabu, your Honor. Ong’s authority. PO2 Ong then acquired the
sachet of shabu from accused-appellant Bandali
PROS. ANTERO: by seizure, not by delivery. Even if there may be
doubt as to whether or not accused-appellant
Q. Why do you know that he was Bandali? Bandali was actually aware at that moment that
PO2 Ong was a police officer, the ambiguity
A. Because Michael Maongco was pointing to would still be resolved in accused-appellant
him that he was Phans Bandali, sir. Bandali’s favor.
Q. Was Michael with you when you went to that This does not mean though that accused-
Jollibee? appellant Bandali goes scot-free. The evidence
for the prosecution did establish that accused-
A. Yes, sir. appellant Bandali committed illegal possession
of dangerous drugs, penalized under Article II,
Q. What happened when you demanded from Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165.
Bandali this shabu?
For the prosecution of illegal possession of
A. He voluntarily put out the shabu, sir. dangerous drugs to prosper, the following
essential elements must be proven, namely: (1)
Q. What happened next, Mr. Witness? the accused is in possession of an item or object
that is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such
A. I told him of his violation and his rights, possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the
sir.28 PO2 Ong further confirmed during his accused freely and consciously possess the
cross-examination: said drug.30Accused-appellant Maongco
informed the police officers that the other sachet
Q. Now, Mr. Witness, you mentioned a while of shabu was in the possession of accused-
ago that you arrested Phans Bandali inside appellant Bandali. Accused-appellant Bandali
Jollibee, Pantranco.1avvphi1 Is that correct? herein was in possession of the sachet of shabu
as he was sitting at Jollibee Pantranco branch
A. Yes, sir. and was approached by PO2 Ong. Hence,
accused-appellant Bandali was able to
Q. And you did not buy from him a shabu, Mr. immediately produce and surrender the said
Witness? sachet upon demand by PO2 Ong. Accused-
appellant Bandali, admittedly jobless at the time
A. No, sir. of his arrest,31 did not have any authority to
possess shabu. And as to the last element, the
Q. You just demanded from him a plastic rule is settled that possession of dangerous
sachet? drugs constitutes prima facie evidence of
knowledge or animus possidendi, which is
sufficient to convict an accused in the absence The Court disagrees with accused-appellants as
of a satisfactory explanation of such the police officers had substantially complied
possession.32 with the chain of custody rule under Section
21(a) of the Implementing Rules of Republic Act
But can accused-appellant Bandali be convicted No. 9165. The Court had previously held that in
for illegal possession of dangerous drugs under dangerous drugs cases, the failure of the police
Article II, Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 officers to make a physical inventory, to
when he was charged with illegal dispensation, photograph, and to mark the seized drugs at the
delivery, transportation, distribution or acting as place of arrest do not render said drugs
broker of dangerous drugs under Article II, inadmissible in evidence or automatically impair
Section 5 of the same statute? The Court the integrity of the chain of custody of the
answers in the affirmative. same.34 The Court had further clarified, in
relation to the requirement of marking the drugs
Rule 120, Section 4 of the Rules of Court "immediately after seizure and confiscation,"
governs situations where there is a variance that the marking may be undertaken at the
between the crime charged and the crime police station rather than at the place of arrest
proved, to wit: for as long as it is done in the presence of the
accused and that what is of utmost importance
Sec. 4. Judgment in case of variance between is the preservation of its integrity and evidentiary
allegation and proof. – When there is variance value.35
between the offense charged in the complaint or
information and that proved, and the offense as The Court finds no fault on the part of both the
charged is included in or necessarily includes RTC and the Court of Appeals in giving more
the offense proved, the accused shall be weight and credence to the testimonies of the
convicted of the offense proved which is police officers vis-à-vis those of the accused-
included in the offense charged, or of the appellants. Questions as to the credibility of
offense charged which is included in the offense witnesses are matters best left to the
proved. appreciation of the trial court because of its
unique opportunity of having observed that
Well-settled in jurisprudence that the crime of elusive and incommunicable evidence of the
illegal sale of dangerous drugs necessarily witnesses’ deportment on the stand while
includes the crime of illegal possession of testifying, which opportunity is denied to the
dangerous drugs.33 The same ruling may also reviewing tribunal.36
be applied to the other acts penalized under
Article II, Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 Moreover, accused-appellants’ uncorroborated
because for the accused to be able to trade, defenses of denial and claims of frame-up
administer, dispense, deliver, give away to cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of
another, distribute, dispatch in transit, or the prosecution witnesses, coupled with the
transport any dangerous drug, he must presentation in court of the corpus delicti. The
necessarily be in possession of said drugs. testimonies of police officers who caught the
accused-appellants in flagrante delicto are
At the outset of the trial, both parties had usually credited with more weight and credence,
admitted the laboratory results showing that the in the absence of evidence that they have been
contents of the two sachets tested positive for inspired by an improper or ill motive, than the
shabu, although accused-appellants contest the defenses of denial and frame-up of an accused
identity and integrity of the sachets and contents which have been invariably viewed with disfavor
actually tested since the chain of custody of the for it can easily be concocted. In order to
same was not satisfactorily established in prosper, the defenses of denial and frame-up
accordance with Republic Act No. 9165 and its must be proved with strong and convincing
implementing rules.
evidence,37 which accused-appellants failed to ordered to pay a FINE of Five Hundred

present in this case. Thousand Pesos (₱500,000.00); and
Lastly, the Court determines the proper 2. In Criminal Case No. Q-04-127732, accused-
penalties to be imposed upon accused- appellant PHANS SIMP AL BAND ALI is found
appellants.1âwphi1 GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of illegal
possession of shabu with a net weight of 4.45
Under Article II, Section 5 of Republic Act No. grams, penalized under Article II, Section 11 of
9165, the penalties for the illegal delivery of Republic Act No. 9165, and is sentenced to
dangerous drugs, regardless of the quantity suffer the penalty of IMPRISONMENT of twelve
thereof, shall be life imprisonment to death and (12) years and one (1) day, as the minimum
a fine ranging from Five Hundred Thousand term, to twenty (20) years, as the maximum
Pesos (₱500,000.00) to Ten Million Pesos term, and ordered to pay a FINE of Four
(₱10,000,000.00). Hence, accused-appellant Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱400,000.00).
Maongco, for his illegal delivery of shabu in
Criminal Case No. Q-04-127731, is sentenced SO ORDERED.
to life imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine of
Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱500,000.00).
Article II, Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165

prescribes the penalty, for possession of less
than five grams of dangerous drugs, of
imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1)
day to twenty (20) years, plus a fine ranging
from Three Hundred Thousand Pesos
(₱300,000.00) to Four Hundred Thousand
Pesos (₱400,000.00). Applying the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum
term shall not exceed the maximum fixed by law
and the minimum shall not be less than the
minimum term as prescribed by the same law.
Resultantly, accused-appellant Bandali, for his
illegal possession of 4.45 grams of shabu in
Criminal Case No. Q-04-127732, is sentenced
to imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1)
day, as the minimum term, to twenty (20) years,
as the maximum term, and ordered to pay a fine
of Four Hundred Thousand Pesos
(₱400,000.00).
WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision Is

AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS to read as
follows:
1. In Criminal Case No. Q-04-127731, accused-

appellant MICHAEL YUMONDA MAONGCO is
found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
illegal delivery of shabu penalized under Article
II, Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165, and is
sentenced to LIFE IMPRISONMENT and
G.R. No. 189840 December 11, 2013 which is a dangerous drug, in violation of the
above-cited law.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee, CONTRARY TO LAW.4
vs.
JAY MONTEVIRGEN y OZARAGA, Accused- Criminal Case No. 05-1397
Appellant.
That on or about the 19th day of July 2005, in
DECISION the City of Makati, Philippines, a place within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
DEL CASTILLO, J.: abovenamed accused, not lawfully authorized to
possess or otherwise use any dangerous drug
Failure to physically inventory and photograph and without the corresponding license or
the shabu seized from an accused in the prescription, did then and there willfully,
manner prescribed by law do not invalidate his unlawfully and feloniously have in his
arrest or render said drug inadmissible in possession, direct custody and control weighing
evidence if its integrity and evidentiary value zero point zero four (0.04) gram and zero point
remain intact. It could still be utilized in ten (0.10) gram or [a] total weight of zero point
determining the guilt or innocence of the fourteen (0.14) gram of Methylamphetamine
accused.1 Hydrochloride (Shabu), which is a dangerous
drug, in violation of the above-cited law.
Factual Antecedents
CONTRARY TO LAW.5
On appeal is the Decision2 dated July 31, 2009
of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR- During arraignment, appellant pleaded "not
H.C. No. 03208 which affirmed the guilty" in the two cases. After the pre-trial
Decision3 dated December 18, 2007 of Branch conference, a joint trial on the merits ensued.
65, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City in
Criminal Case Nos. 05-1396 to 1397 convicting Version of the Prosecution
beyond reasonable doubt Jay
Montevirgen y Oza.raga (appellant) for the On July 18, 2005, P/Supt. Marietto Valerio
crime of illegal sale and possession (P/Supt. Valerio) of the Makati City Police
of shabu under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation
Republic Act (RA) No. 9165 or the Task Force received a report from a confidential
"Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of informant that appellant was selling shabu in
2002." Malvar Street, Barangay South Cembo, Makati
City. Thus, he immediately formed a team
The Informations against appellant read as composed of police officers and personnel of
follows: the Makati Anti-Drug Abuse Council (MADAC)
to conduct a buy-bust operation against
Criminal Case No. 05-1396 appellant. The members of the entrapment team
were PO3 Esterio M. Ruiz, Jr. (PO3 Ruiz), PO1
That on or about the 19th day of July 2005, in Percival Mendoza, PO1 Honorio Marmonejo
the City of Makati, Philippines, a place within the (PO1 Marmonejo), Barangay Captain Rodolfo
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above- Doromal, Eugenio Dizer, Miguel Castillo, Leo
named accused, without being authorized by Sese, and Anthony Villanueva. PO3 Ruiz was
law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and designated as poseur-buyer and was provided
feloniously sell distribute and transport, with two 100-peso bills marked money. PO1
weighing zero point zero four (0.04) gram of Marmonejo, on the other hand, coordinated the
Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu), operation with the Philippine Drug Enforcement
Agency (PDEA), which issued a Certificate of searched his house then appellant was made to
Coordination.6 The buy-bust team then board a vehicle where he was showed a plastic
proceeded to the subject area but could not sachet containing white crystalline substance
locate appellant.7 that he believed to be shabu. He struggled to
free himself and denied ownership thereof but
The next day, July 19, 2005, the buy-bust team his actions were futile. He was taken
returned to Malvar Street and found appellant to Barangay Olympia, Makati City, where he
talking to three men. After these men departed, was detained for 30 minutes, then brought to the
PO3 Ruiz, accompanied by the confidential crime laboratory for drug testing.10
informant, approached appellant. The
confidential informant introduced PO3 Ruiz to Defense witness Fancy Dela Cruz corroborated
appellant and told him that PO3 Ruiz wanted to the testimony of appellant. She averred that at
buy shabu. Appellant asked PO3 Ruiz how around 1:30 p.m. of July 19, 2005, two vehicles
much he wanted to buy and he replied, parked almost in front of her. Several men
₱200.00. Appellant pulled out from his pocket alighted from the vehicles and forced open the
three plastic sachets containing white crystalline door of appellant’s house. She inquired as to
substance and told PO3 Ruiz to choose one. He their intentions but was told not to intervene and
complied and gave the marked money to to avoid involvement. She complied but heard
appellant as payment. Appellant pocketed the one of the men telling appellant to get up and
remaining plastic sachets together with the put on his clothes. The men then had appellant
marked money. PO3 Ruiz then took off his cap board one of the vehicles and sped away. She
– the pre-arranged signal that the transaction looked for appellant’s wife and informed her of
had been consummated. The other buy-bust the incident.11
team members then rushed to the scene to
assist PO3 Ruiz in apprehending appellant. The Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
two other plastic sachets and marked money
were recovered from appellant after PO3 Ruiz The RTC gave credence to the testimony of the
ordered him to empty his pockets. PO3 Ruiz prosecution witnesses on the events that
then marked the plastic sachets – "EMR" for the transpired prior to and during the buy-bust
one appellant sold to him and "EMR-1" and operation. It rendered a verdict of conviction on
"EMR-2"8 for the other two sachets confiscated December 18, 2007,12 viz:
from appellant.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing,
Appellant was taken to the police headquarters judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
where he was booked and the incident recorded
in the police blotter. The items seized from him 1. In Criminal Case No. 05-1396, the Court finds
were turned over to the duty investigator who accused JAY MONTEVIRGEN y OZARAGA,
prepared a request for laboratory examination GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the charge
and then sent to the crime laboratory. The for violation of Sec. 5, Art. II, RA 9165, and
results revealed that the contents of the plastic sentences him to suffer LIFE imprisonment and
sachets are positive for shabu.9 to pay a fine of FIVE Hundred Thousand
(₱500,000.00) pesos;
Version of the Defense
2. In Criminal Case No. 05-1397, the Court finds
Appellant testified that on July 19, 2005, at accused JAY MONTEVIRGEN y OZARAGA,
around 2 p.m., he was in his house with his wife GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the charge
and child when he was roused from sleep by a for violation of Sec. 11, Art. II, RA 9165 and
man armed with a gun. Several other armed sentences him to suffer the penalty of
men entered his house. He was told that a buy- imprisonment of Twelve (12) years and one (1)
bust operation was being conducted. They day as minimum to Twenty (20) years as
maximum and to pay a fine of Three Hundred A[P]PREHENDING TEAM TO PROVE [THE]
Thousand (₱300,000.00); INTEGRITY OF THE SEIZED DRUGS.16
The period of detention of the accused should In his joint discussion of these errors, appellant
be given full credit. contends that the police officers involved in the
buy-bust operation failed to observe the proper
Let the dangerous drug subject matter of these procedure in the custody and control of the
cases be disposed of in the manner provided for seized drug by not marking the confiscated
by law. specimens in the manner mandated by law. He
claims that the arresting team did not
SO ORDERED.13 immediately conduct a physical inventory of the
seized items and photograph the same in the
Ruling of the Court of Appeals presence of his representative or counsel,
representative from media, Department of
On appeal, the CA concurred with the RTC’s Justice, and any elected public officials pursuant
findings and conclusions and, consequently, to Section 21 of the Implementing Rules and
affirmed its judgment in the assailed Regulations of RA 9165. He also argues that the
Decision14 of July 31, 2009. The dispositive Certificate of Coordination has no weight in
portion of CA’s Decision reads: evidence and cannot be used to prove the
legitimacy of the buy-bust operation since it was
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The issued for the failed entrapment operation the
December 18, 2007 Decision of the Regional previous day, July 18, 2005.
Trial Court of the City of Makati, Branch 65 is
hereby AFFIRMED. Appellee, through the Office of the Solicitor
General argues that the prosecution sufficiently
SO ORDERED.15 established all the elements of illegal sale and
possession of shabu against appellant. It
Assignment of Errors asserts that the integrity and evidentiary value
of the shabu seized from appellant were
Still unable to accept his conviction, appellant is properly preserved by the arresting team.
now before us raising the same interrelated
errors he assigned before the CA, viz: Our Ruling
I The appeal is unmeritorious.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN Elements for the Prosecution of Illegal
CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT Sale and Possession of Shabu.
DESPITE NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROPER In every prosecution for the illegal sale of shabu,
CUSTODY OF SEIZED DANGEROUS DRUGS under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the
UNDER R.A. NO. 9165. following elements must be proved: "(1) the
identity of the buyer and the seller, the object
II and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the
thing sold and the payment therefor. x x x What
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN is material in a prosecution for illegal sale of
GIVING CREDENCE TO THE dangerous drugs is the proof that the
PROSECUTION’S EVIDENCE transaction or sale actually took place, coupled
NOTWIT[H]STANDING THE FAILURE OF THE with the presentation in court of the corpus
delicti"17 or the illicit drug in evidence. On the
other hand, in prosecuting a case for illegal
possession of dangerous drugs under Section appellant of any evil motives on the part of the
11, Article II of the same law, the following buy-bust team to falsely testify against him.
elements must concur: "(1) the accused is in Their testimonies and actuations therefore enjoy
possession of an item or object, which is the presumption of regularity.
identified as a prohibited drug; (2) such
possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the Failure to Physically Inventory and
accused freely and consciously possessed the Photograph the Shabu After Seizure
drug.18 and Confiscation is Not Fatal.
In this case, all the elements for the illegal sale Appellant draws attention to the failure of the
of shabu were established. PO3 Ruiz, the apprehending police officers to comply with
poseur-buyer, positively identified appellant as Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing
the person he caught in flagrante delicto selling Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 regarding
a white crystalline substance believed to the physical inventory and photograph of the
be shabu in the entrapment operation seized items. This provision reads as follows:
conducted by the police and MADAC
operatives. Upon receipt of the ₱200.00 buy- (1) The apprehending officer/team having initial
bust money, appellant handed to PO3 Ruiz the custody and control of the drugs shall,
sachet containing 0.04 gram of white crystalline immediately after seizure and confiscation,
substance which later tested positive for shabu. physically inventory and photograph the same
"The delivery of the contraband to the poseur- in the presence of the accused or the person/s
buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked from whom such items were confiscated and/or
money successfully consummated the buy-bust seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a
transaction x x x."19 representative from the media and the
Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected
All the elements in the prosecution for illegal public official who shall be required to sign the
possession of dangerous drugs were also copies of the inventory and be given a copy
established. First, the two plastic sachets thereof; Provided, that the physical inventory
containing shabu subject of the case for the and photograph shall be conducted at the place
illegal possession of drugs were found in where the search warrant is served; or at the
appellant’s pocket after a search on his person nearest police station or at the nearest office of
was made following his arrest in flagrante the apprehending officer/team, whichever is
delicto for the illegal sale of shabu. It must be practicable, in case of warrantless
remembered that a person lawfully arrested seizures; Provided further, that non-compliance
may be searched for anything which may have with these requirements under justifiable
been used or constitute proof in the commission grounds, as long as the integrity and the
of an offense without a warrant.20 Second, evidentiary value of the seized items are
appellant did not adduce evidence showing his properly preserved by the apprehending
legal authority to possess the shabu. Third, officer/team, shall not render void and invalid
appellant’s act of allowing the poseur-buyer to such seizures of and custody over said items.
choose one from among the three sachets and
putting back into his pocket the two sachets In other words, the failure of the prosecution to
of shabu not chosen clearly shows that he freely show that the police officers conducted the
and consciously possessed the illegal drugs. required physical inventory and take photograph
Hence, appellant was correctly charged and of the objects confiscated does not ipso
convicted for illegal possession of shabu. facto render inadmissible in evidence the items
seized. There is a proviso in the implementing
Appellant’s defense of denial cannot prevail rules stating that when it is shown that there
against the positive testimony of prosecution exist justifiable grounds and proof that the
witnesses. There is also no imputation by integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence
have been preserved, the seized items can still courts’ imposition of life imprisonment as well as
be used in determining the guilt or innocence of the payment of fine of ₱500,000.00.
the accused.21
On the other hand, Section 11(3), Article II of the
Here, the absence of evidence that the buy-bust same law provides that illegal possession of
team made an inventory and took photographs less than five grams of shabu is penalized with
of the drugs seized from appellant was not fatal imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1)
since the prosecution was able to preserve the day to twenty (20) years plus a fine ranging from
integrity and evidentiary value of the shabu. ₱300,000.00 to ₱400,000.00.
PO3 Ruiz, the poseur-buyer and apprehending
officer, marked the seized items in front of Appellant was found guilty of selling one sachet
appellant, the barangay captain and other containing 0.04 gram of shabu and of
members of the buy-bust team, immediately possessing two other sachets of the same
after the consummation of the drug transaction. substance with a total weight of 0.14 gram.
He then delivered the seized items to the duty Hence, applying the above provisions, the
investigator, who in turn sent the same to the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years
PNP Crime Laboratory for examination on the and one (1) day as minimum to twenty (20)
same day. During trial, PO3 Ruiz was able to years as maximum and the payment of fine of
identify the said markings and explain how they ₱300,000.00 imposed by the RTC and affirmed
were made. by the CA are also proper.
Clearly, there was no hiatus or confusion in the WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The
confiscation, handling, custody and examination assailed Decision dated July 31, 2009 of the
of the shabu.1âwphi1 The illegal drugs that Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No.
were confiscated from appellant, taken to the 03208 affirming the conviction of Jay
police headquarters, subjected to qualitative Montevirgen y Ozaraga by the Regional Trial
examination at the crime laboratory, and finally Court of Makati City, Branch 65, for violation of
introduced in evidence against appellant were Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No.
the same illegal drugs that were confiscated 9165, is AFFIRMED.
from him when he was caught in flagrante
delicto selling and possessing the same. SO ORDERED.
Appellant’s contention that the buy-bust team

should have coordinated with the PDEA on the
day the entrapment operation occurred
deserves scant consideration. Coordination with
the PDEA is not an indispensable element of a
proper buy-bust operation.22 A buy-bust
operation is not invalidated by mere
noncoordination with the PDEA.23
Penalty
Under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the

penalty for the unauthorized sale of shabu,
regardless of its quantity and purity, is life
imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from
₱500,000.00 to ₱10 million. Since the penalty
imposed by the RTC and affirmed by the CA is
within the prescribed range, we affirm the lower
G.R. No. 205821 October 1, 2014 which when subjected to qualitative examination
gave positive result to the tests for the presence
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff- of METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE
appellee, (shabu) knowing the same to be a dangerous
vs. drug.
GARRY DELA CRUZ y DE
GUZMAN, Accused-appellant. CONTRARY TO LAW.
DECISION Criminal Case No. 5451 (20921)
LEONEN, J.: VIOLATION OF SECTION 11, ARTICLE II OF

THE
"Law enforcers should not trifle with the legal COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS
requirement to ensure integrity in the chain of ACT OF 2002
custody of seized dangerous drugs and drug
paraphernalia. This is especially true when only (REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165)
a miniscule amount of dangerous drugs is
alleged to have been taken from the accused."1 That on or about September 14, 2004, in the
City of Zamboanga, Philippines, and within the
This resolves an appeal from a conviction for jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
violation of Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act named accused, not being authorized by law,
No. 9165, otherwise known as the did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. feloniously, have in his possession and under
his custody and control six (6) pieces heat-
On September 15, 2004, accused-appellant sealed transparent plastic sachets each
Garry dela Cruz (dela Cruz) was charged with containing white crystalline substance, each
illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous weighing as follows: 1) 0.0135 gram; 2) 0.0183
drugs in two separate informations,2 as follows: gram; 3) 0.0542 gram; 4) 0.0197 gram; 5)
0.0100 [gram]; and 6) 0.0128 gram or a total of
Criminal Case No. 5450 (20920) 0.1285 gram; which when subjected to
qualitative examination gave positive result to
VIOLATION OF SECTION 5, A[R]TICLE (sic) II the tests for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride
K OF THE (shabu) knowing same to be a dangerous drug.
COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS
ACT OF 2002 CONTRARY TO LAW.3 (Citations omitted)
(REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165) As alleged by the prosecution, dela Cruz was
arrested in a buy-bust operation. The buy-bust
That on or about September 14, 2004, in the operation was allegedly conducted after a
City of Zamboanga, Philippines, and within the civilian informant (the informant) tipped the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above- Zamboanga City Police Office that a certain
named accused, not being authorized by law to "Gary" was selling illegal drugs at the parking
sell, deliver, transport, distribute or give away to area for buses behind Food Mart, Governor Lim
another any dangerous drugs, did then and Street, Sangali, Bunguioa, Zamboanga City (the
there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, SELL target area).4
AND DELIVER to PO1 WILFREDO BOBON y
TARROZA, a member of the PNP, who acted as The buy-bust operation team included PO1
buyer, one (1) small heat-sealed transparent Wilfredo Bobon (PO1 Bobon), as poseur-buyer,
plastic pack containing white crystalline and SPO1 Roberto Roca (SPO1 Roca), as
substance having a total weight of 0.0120 gram back-up arresting officer. It was agreed that
"PO1 Bobon would remove his bull cap once the he was asked if he was Jing-Jong, alias Jong-
sale of illegal drugs was [consummated]." The Jong. Despite his denials, he was brought to the
buy-bust team prepared a _100.00 bill with police station. It was when he was already
serial number KM 776896 as marked money.5 detained that he learned that he was charged for
violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous
At around 11:00 a.m. of September 14, 2004, Drugs Act of 2002.13
the buy-bust operation team, accompanied by
the informant, went to the target area. The On August 19, 2010, the Regional Trial Court,
informant initially brokered the sale of shabu. It Branch 13, Zamboanga City, convicted dela
was PO1 Bobon who handed the marked Cruz for violating Article II, Section 5 of the
money to dela Cruz in exchange for one (1) Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
heat-sealed plastic sachet of suspected shabu. and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a
After which, he removed his bull cap. SPO1 fine of _500,000.00. He was also convicted for
Roca then arrested dela Cruz.6 violating Article II, Section 11 of the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
Upon frisking dela Cruz, PO1 Bobon and sentenced to 12 years and one day up to 14
supposedly recovered six (6) more heat-sealed years imprisonment and a fine of _300,000.00.
sachets of suspected shabu. PO1 Bobon placed The dispositive portion of this decision reads:
the sachet he purchased from dela Cruz in his
right pocket and the six (6) other sachets in his WHEREFORE, this Court finds:
left pocket. SPO1 Roca recovered the marked
_100.00 bill.7 1. In Criminal Case No. 5450 (20920), accused
GARRY DELA CRUZ y DE GUZMAN guilty
Dela Cruz and the seven (7) sachets seized beyond reasonable doubt for violating Section 5,
from him were then brought to the Zamboanga Article II of R.A. 9165 and sentences him to
City Police Station.8There, PO1 Bobon taped suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and
the sachets. He then marked the sachet from his to pay a fine of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND
right pocket with his initials, "WB."9 He marked PESOS (₱500,000) without subsidiary
the sachets from his left pocket as "WB-1," "WB- imprisonment in case of insolvency;
2," "WB-3," "WB-4," "WB-5," and "WB-6."10
2. In Criminal Case No. 5451 (20921), accused
On the same day, the seven (7) sachets were GARRY DELA CRUZ y DE GUZMAN guilty
turned over to SPO1 Federico Lindo, Jr., the beyond reasonable doubt for violating Section
investigating officer, who prepared the request 11, Article II of R.A. 9165 and sentences him to
for laboratory examination. Subsequently, the suffer the penalty of TWELVE YEARS AND
tests yielded positive results for shabu.11 ONE DAY to FOURTEEN YEARS of
imprisonment and pay a fine of THREE
During trial, the prosecution presented as HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (₱300,000)
witnesses PO1 Bobon, SPO1 Roca, and without subsidiary imprisonment in case of
forensic chemist Police Inspector Melvin L. insolvency.
Manuel. The sole witness presented for the
defense was dela Cruz himself.12 The methamphetamine hydrochloride used as
evidence in these cases are hereby ordered
For his part, dela Cruz acknowledged that on confiscated to be turned over to the proper
the morning of September 14, 2004, he was in authorities for disposition.
the target area. As he was leaving the comfort
room, someone embraced him from behind, SO ORDERED.14
while another poked a gun at him. He was then
handcuffed and brought to an L-300 van which On appeal to the Court of Appeals, dela Cruz
was parked in front of Food Mart. Inside the van, assailed the prosecution’s failure to establish
the chain of custody of the seized sachets of took place and (2) the presentation in court of
shabu. He also assailed the validity of the buy- the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence.
bust operation and the prosecution’s failure to
present the informant in court.15 On the other hand, in prosecutions for illegal
possession of a dangerous drug, it must be
On May 31, 2012, the Court of Appeals shown that (1) the accused was in possession
rendered a decision16 affirming dela Cruz’ of an item or an object identified to be a
conviction in toto. Thereafter, dela Cruz filed his prohibited or regulated drug, (2) such
notice of appeal.17 possession is not authorized by law, and (3) the
accused was freely and consciously aware of
In the resolution18 dated April 15, 2013, this being in possession of the drug. Similarly, in this
court noted the records forwarded by the Court case, the evidence of the corpus delicti must be
of Appeals and informed the parties that they established beyond reasonable doubt.21
may file their supplemental briefs.
With respect to the element of corpus delicti,
On June 6, 2013, the Office of the Solicitor Section 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous
General filed a manifestation and motion,19 on Drugs Act of 2002, as amended by Republic Act
behalf of the People of the Philippines, noting No. 10640 provides for the custody and
that it would no longer file a supplemental brief disposition of confiscated, seized, and/or
as the brief it filed with the Court of Appeals had surrendered drugs and/or drug paraphernalia.
adequately addressed the arguments and Particularly on the matter of custody before a
issues raised by dela Cruz. criminal case is filed, Section 21, as amended,
provides:
On August 7, 2013, dela Cruz filed a
manifestation20 indicating that he, too, would no SEC. 21. Custody and Disposition of
longer file a supplemental brief and that he was Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered
instead re-pleading, adopting, and reiterating Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous
the defenses and arguments in the brief he filed Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential
before the Court of Appeals. Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or
Laboratory Equipment. – The PDEA shall take
For resolution is the issue of whether dela charge and have custody of all dangerous
Cruz’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs,
violating Sections 5 and 11 of the controlled precursors and essential chemicals,
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or
was established. Subsumed in the resolution of laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized
this issue are the issues raised by dela Cruz in and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the
the brief he filed with the Court of Appeals, following manner:
foremost of which is whether the prosecution
was able to establish compliance with the chain (1) The apprehending team having initial
of custody requirements under Section 21 of the custody and control of the dangerous drugs,
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. controlled precursors and essential chemicals,
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory
The elements that must be established to equipment shall, immediately after seizure and
sustain convictions for illegal sale and illegal confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the
possession of dangerous drugs are settled: seized items and photograph the same in the
presence of the accused or the person/s from
In actions involving the illegal sale of dangerous whom such items were confiscated and/or
drugs, the following elements must first be seized, or his/her representative or counsel,
established: (1) proof that the transaction or sale with an elected public official and a
representative of the National Prosecution
Service or the media who shall be required to non-compliance will, thus, engender the
sign the copies of the inventory and be given a acquittal of an accused.
copy thereof: Provided, That the physical
inventory and photograph shall be conducted at We reiterate the extensive discussion on this
the place where the search warrant is served; or matter from our recent decision in People v.
at the nearest police station or at the nearest Holgado:22
office of the apprehending officer/team,
whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless As this court declared in People v. Morales,
seizures: Provided, finally, That noncompliance "failure to comply with Paragraph 1, Section 21,
of these requirements under justifiable grounds, Article II of RA 9165 implie[s] a concomitant
as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value failure on the part of the prosecution to establish
of the seized items are properly preserved by the identity of the corpus delicti."23 It "produce[s]
the apprehending officer/team, shall not render doubts as to the origins of the [seized
void and invalid such seizures and custody over paraphernalia]."24
said items.
The significance of ensuring the integrity of
(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon drugs and drug paraphernalia in prosecutions
confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, plant under Republic Act No. 9165 is discussed in
sources of dangerous drugs, controlled People v. Belocura:25
precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory Worse, the Prosecution failed to establish the
equipment, the same shall be submitted to the identity of the prohibited drug that constituted
PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and the corpus delicti itself. The omission naturally
quantitative examination; raises grave doubt about any search being
actually conducted and warrants the suspicion
(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory that the prohibited drugs were planted evidence.
examination results, which shall be done by the
forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued In every criminal prosecution for possession of
immediately upon the receipt of the subject illegal drugs, the Prosecution must account for
item/s: Provided, That when the volume of the custody of the incriminating evidence from
dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous the moment of seizure and confiscation until the
drugs, and controlled precursors and essential moment it is offered in evidence. That account
chemicals does not allow the completion of goes to the weight of evidence. It is not enough
testing within the time frame, a partial laboratory that the evidence offered has probative value on
examination report shall be provisionally issued the issues, for the evidence must also be
stating therein the quantities of dangerous drugs sufficiently connected to and tied with the facts
still to be examined by the forensic laboratory: in issue. The evidence is not relevant merely
Provided, however, That a final certification because it is available but that it has an actual
shall be issued immediately upon completion of connection with the transaction involved and
the said examination and certification; with the parties thereto. This is the reason why
authentication and laying a foundation for the
.... introduction of evidence are
important.26 (Emphasis supplied)
The significance of complying with Section 21’s
requirements cannot be overemphasized. Non- In Malilin v. People,27 this court explained that
compliance is tantamount to failure in the exactitude required by Section 21 goes into
establishing identity of corpus delicti, an the very nature of narcotics as the subject of
essential element of the offenses of illegal sale prosecutions under Republic Act No. 9165:
and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. By
failing to establish an element of these offenses,
Indeed, the likelihood of tampering, loss or paraphernalia in four (4) respects: first, the
mistake with respect to an exhibit is greatest nature of the substances or items seized;
when the exhibit is small and is one that has second, the quantity (e.g., weight) of the
physical characteristics fungible in nature and substances or items seized; third, the relation of
similar in form to substances familiar to people the substances or items seized to the incident
in their daily lives. Graham vs. State positively allegedly causing their seizure; and fourth, the
acknowledged this danger. In that case where a relation of the substances or items seized to the
substance later analyzed as heroin—was person/s alleged to have been in possession of
handled by two police officers prior to or peddling them. Compliance with this
examination who however did not testify in court requirement forecloses opportunities for
on the condition and whereabouts of the exhibit planting, contaminating, or tampering of
at the time it was in their possession—was evidence in any manner.
excluded from the prosecution evidence, the
court pointing out that the white powder seized By failing to establish identity of corpus delicti,
could have been indeed heroin or it could have non-compliance with Section 21 indicates a
been sugar or baking powder. It ruled that failure to establish an element of the offense of
unless the state can show by records or illegal sale of dangerous drugs. It follows that
testimony, the continuous whereabouts of the this non-compliance suffices as a ground for
exhibit at least between the time it came into the acquittal. As this court stated in People v.
possession of police officers until it was tested Lorenzo:29
in the laboratory to determine its composition,
testimony of the state as to the laboratory’s In both illegal sale and illegal possession of
findings is inadmissible. prohibited drugs, conviction cannot be
sustained if there is a persistent doubt on the
A unique characteristic of narcotic substances is identity of the drug. The identity of the prohibited
that they are not readily identifiable as in fact drug must be established with moral certainty.
they are subject to scientific analysis to Apart from showing that the elements of
determine their composition and nature. The possession or sale are present, the fact that the
Court cannot reluctantly close its eyes to the substance illegally possessed and sold in the
likelihood, or at least the possibility, that at any first place is the same substance offered in court
of the links in the chain of custody over the same as exhibit must likewise be established with the
there could have been tampering, alteration or same degree of certitude as that needed to
substitution of substances from other cases—by sustain a guilty verdict.30 (Emphasis supplied)
accident or otherwise—in which similar
evidence was seized or in which similar The prosecution’s sweeping guarantees as to
evidence was submitted for laboratory testing. the identity and integrity of seized drugs and
Hence, in authenticating the same, a standard drug paraphernalia will not secure a conviction.
more stringent than that applied to cases Not even the presumption of regularity in the
involving objects which are readily identifiable performance of official duties will suffice. In fact,
must be applied, a more exacting standard that whatever presumption there is as to the
entails a chain of custody of the item with regularity of the manner by which officers took
sufficient completeness if only to render it and maintained custody of the seized items is
improbable that the original item has either been "negated."31 Republic Act No. 9165 requires
exchanged with another or been contaminated compliance with Section 21.
or tampered with.28 (Emphasis supplied)
Even the doing of acts which ostensibly
Compliance with the chain of custody approximate compliance but do not actually
requirement provided by Section 21, therefore, comply with the requirements of Section 21
ensures the integrity of confiscated, seized, does not suffice. In People v. Magat,32 for
and/or surrendered drugs and/or drug instance, this court had occasion to emphasize
the inadequacy of merely marking the items in the course of the transaction and, thereafter,
supposedly seized: "Marking of the seized he handed it to the investigator.
drugs alone by the law enforcers is not enough
to comply with the clear and unequivocal There is no evidence either on how the item was
procedures prescribed in Section 21 of R.A. No. stored, preserved, labeled, and recorded. PO1
9165."33 Collado could not even provide the court with
the name of the investigator. He admitted that
The exactitude which the state requires in he was not present when it was delivered to the
handling seized narcotics and drug crime laboratory. It was Forensic Chemist
paraphernalia is bolstered by the amendments Bernardino M. Banac, Jr. who identified the
made to Section 21 by Republic Act No. 10640. person who delivered the specimen to the crime
Section 21(1), as amended, now includes the laboratory. He disclosed that he received the
following proviso, thereby making it even more specimen from one PO1 Cuadra, who was not
stringent than as originally worded: even a member of the buy-bust team. Per their
record, PO1 Cuadra delivered the letter-request
Provided, That the physical inventory and with the attached seized item to the CPD Crime
photograph shall be conducted at the place Laboratory Office where a certain PO2 Semacio
where the search warrant is served; or at the recorded it and turned it over to the Chemistry
nearest police station or at the nearest office of Section.
the apprehending officer/team, whichever is
practicable, in case of warrantless seizures: In view of the foregoing, the Court is of the
considered view that chain of custody of the
In People v. Nandi,34 this court explained that illicit drug seized was compromised. Hence, the
four (4) links "should be established in the chain presumption of regularity in the performance of
of custody of the confiscated item: first, the duties cannot be applied in this case.
seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal
drug recovered from the accused by the Given the flagrant procedural lapses the police
apprehending officer; second, the turnover of committed in handling the seized shabu and the
the illegal drug seized by the apprehending obvious evidentiary gaps in the chain of its
officer to the investigating officer; third, the custody, a presumption of regularity in the
turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal performance of duties cannot be made in this
drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory case. A presumption of regularity in the
examination; and fourth, the turnover and performance of official duty is made in the
submission of the marked illegal drug seized context of an existing rule of law or statute
from the forensic chemist to the court."35 authorizing the performance of an act or duty or
prescribing a procedure in the performance
In Nandi, where the prosecution failed to show thereof. The presumption applies when nothing
how the seized items were handled following the in the record suggests that the law enforcers
actual seizure and, thereafter, turned over for deviated from the standard conduct of official
examination, this court held that the accused duty required by law; where the official act is
must be acquitted: irregular on its face, the presumption cannot
arise. In light of the flagrant lapses we noted, the
After a closer look, the Court finds that the lower courts were obviously wrong when they
linkages in the chain of custody of the subject relied on the presumption of regularity in the
item were not clearly established. As can be performance of official duty.
gleaned from his forequoted testimony, PO1
Collado failed to provide informative details on With the chain of custody in serious question,
how the subject shabu was handled the Court cannot gloss over the argument of the
immediately after the seizure. He just claimed accused regarding the weight of the seized
that the item was handed to him by the accused drug. The standard procedure is that after the
confiscation of the dangerous substance, it is supposedly kept the seized sachets in his own
brought to the crime laboratory for a series of pockets: one (1) sachet in his right pocket and
tests. The result thereof becomes one of the six (6) sachets in his left pocket.
bases of the charge to be filed.36 (Citations
omitted) The Court of Appeals reasons:
As Holgado emphasized, "[e]ven the doing of We found no gap in the prosecution’s

acts which ostensibly approximate compliance presentation of the chain of custody. There was
but do not actually comply with the requirements a seizure of seven (7) heat-sealed sachets of
of Section 21 does not suffice."37 In People v. shabu as a result of a valid buy-bust operation.
Garcia,38 this court noted that the mere marking PO1 Bobon and SPO1 Roca testified how the
of seized paraphernalia, unsupported by a seizure was conducted. PO1 Bobon was able to
physical inventory and taking of photographs, identify the shabu which were involved in the
and in the absence of the persons required by illegal sale vis-a-vis the one involved in illegal
Section 21 to be present, does not suffice: possession because he knowingly put them in
different pockets. The seized drugs were
Thus, other than the markings made by PO1 marked at the police station which was only 200
Garcia and the police investigator (whose meters away from the area where the arrest was
identity was not disclosed), no physical made. The identity of these seized items were
inventory was ever made, and no photograph of secured as PO1 Bobon placed tapes on the
the seized items was taken under the respective heat-sealed sachets of shabu and
circumstances required by R.A. No. 9165 and its marked them with his initials which he later
implementing rules. We observe that while there identified in court.42 (Citation omitted)
was testimony with respect to the marking of the
seized items at the police station, no mention The circumstance of PO1 Bobon keeping
whatsoever was made on whether the marking narcotics in his own pockets precisely
had been done in the presence of Ruiz or his underscores the importance of strictly
representatives. There was likewise no mention complying with Section 21. His subsequent
that any representative from the media and the identification in open court of the items coming
Department of Justice, or any elected official out of his own pockets is self-serving.
had been present during this inventory, or that
any of these people had been required to sign The prosecution effectively admits that from the
the copies of the inventory.39 (Citations omitted) moment of the supposed buy-bust operation
until the seized items’ turnover for examination,
In this case, the Regional Trial Court these items had been in the sole possession of
acknowledged that no physical inventory of the a police officer. In fact, not only had they been
seized items was conducted.40Similarly, there is in his possession, they had been in such close
nothing in the records to show that the seized proximity to him that they had been nowhere
items were photographed in the manner else but in his own pockets.
required by Section 21. Likewise, none of the
persons required by Section 21 to be present (or Keeping one of the seized items in his right
their possible substitutes) have been shown to pocket and the rest in his left pocket is a doubtful
be present. and suspicious way of ensuring the integrity of
the items. Contrary to the Court of Appeals’
The Regional Trial Court and the Court of finding that PO1 Bobon took the necessary
Appeals assert that dela Cruz must precautions, we find his actions reckless, if not
nevertheless be convicted as "it had been dubious.
clearly established that the identity of the items
were [sic] properly preserved."41 They anchor Even without referring to the strict requirements
this conclusion on PO1 Bobon’s having of Section 21, common sense dictates that a
single police officer’s act of bodily-keeping the amounts to little more than 7% of the weight of
item(s) which is at the crux of offenses a five-centavo coin (1.9 grams) or a one-
penalized under the Comprehensive Dangerous centavo coin (2.0 grams).
Drugs Act of 2002, is fraught with dangers. One
need not engage in a meticulous counter- As we have discussed in People v. Holgado:
checking with the requirements of Section 21 to
view with distrust the items coming out of PO1 While the miniscule amount of narcotics seized
Bobon’s pockets. That the Regional Trial Court is by itself not a ground for acquittal, this
and the Court of Appeals both failed to see circumstance underscores the need for more
through this and fell — hook, line, and sinker — exacting compliance with Section 21. In Malilin
for PO1 Bobon’s avowals is mind-boggling. v. People, this court said that "the likelihood of
tampering, loss or mistake with respect to an
Moreover, PO1 Bobon did so without even exhibit is greatest when the exhibit is small and
offering the slightest justification for dispensing is one that has physical characteristics fungible
with the requirements of Section 21. in nature and similar in form to substances
familiar to people in their daily lives."
Section 21, paragraph 1, of the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, includes a ....
proviso to the effect that "noncompliance of (sic)
these requirements under justifiable grounds, as Trial courts should meticulously consider the
long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of factual intricacies of cases involving violations of
the seized items are properly preserved by the Republic Act No. 9165. All details that factor into
apprehending officer/team, shall not render void an ostensibly uncomplicated and barefaced
and invalid such seizures and custody over said narrative must be scrupulously considered.
items." Plainly, the prosecution has not shown Courts must employ heightened scrutiny,
that –on September 14, 2004, when dela Cruz consistent with the requirement of proof beyond
was arrested and the sachets supposedly reasonable doubt, in evaluating cases involving
seized and marked – there were "justifiable miniscule amounts of drugs. These can be
grounds" for dispensing with compliance with readily planted and tampered. . . . 44(Citations
Section 21. All that the prosecution has done is omitted)
insist on its self-serving assertion that the
integrity of the seized sachets has, despite all its As the integrity of the corpus delicti of the crimes
lapses, nevertheless been preserved. for which dela Cruz is charged has not been
established, it follows that there is no basis for
Apart from the blatantly irregular handling by finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. It is
PO1 Bobon of the seven (7) sachets, it is also proper that dela Cruz be acquitted.
admitted that no physical inventory and taking of
photographs in the presence of dela Cruz or of We close by hearkening to the same words with
any of the other persons specified by Section 21 which we ended in Holgado:
were conducted.43
It is lamentable that while our dockets are
As in People v. Garcia, the mere marking of clogged with prosecutions under Republic Act
seized paraphernalia, will not suffice to sustain No. 9165 involving small-time drug users and
a conviction in this case. retailers, we are seriously short of prosecutions
involving the proverbial "big fish." We are
The miniscule amount of narcotics supposedly swamped with cases involving small fry who
seized from dela Cruz amplifies the doubts on have been arrested for miniscule amounts.
their integrity.1âwphi1 In total, the seven (7) While they are certainly a bane to our society,
sachets supposedly contained all of 0.1405 small retailers are but low-lying fruits in an
gram of shabu. This quantity is so miniscule it exceedingly vast network of drug cartels. Both
law enforcers and prosecutors should realize

that the more effective and efficient strategy is
to focus resources more on the source and true
leadership of these nefarious organizations.
Otherwise, all these executive and judicial
resources expended to attempt to convict an
accused for 0.05 gram of shabu under doubtful
custodial arrangements will hardly make a dent
in the overall picture. It might in fact be
distracting our law enforcers from their more
challenging task: to uproot the causes of this
drug menace. We stand ready to assess cases
involving greater amounts of drugs and the
leadership of these cartels.45
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the

decision dated May 31, 2012 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00869-MIN is
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-
appellant Garry dela Cruz y de Guzman is
hereby ACQUITTED for failure of the
prosecution to prove his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. He is ordered immediately
RELEASED from detention, unless he is
confined for any other lawful cause.
Let a copy of this decision be furnished the

Director of the Bureau of Corrections,
Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation.
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is
directed to report to this court within five days
from receipt of this decision the action he has
taken. Copies shall also be furnished the
Director General of the Philippine National
Police and the Director General of the Philippine
Drugs Enforcement Agency for their
information.
The Regional Trial Court is directed to tum over

the seized sachets of shabu to the Dangerous
Drugs Board for destruction in accordance with
law.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 212160 February 4, 2015 confidential informant that Sumili was selling
shabu. Acting on the same, SPO2 Edgardo
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff- Englatiera7 (SPO2 Englatiera) dispatched
Appellee, SPO2 Diosdado Cabahug (SPO2 Cabahug) to
vs. conduct surveillance on Sumili, which confirmed
DENNIS SUMILI, Accused-Appellant. the truth and veracity of the aforesaid report.
Consequently, SPO2 Englatiera organized a
DECISION team divided intotwo (2) groups and briefed
them on the buy-bust operation. He also
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: prepared the marked money, consisting of one
(1) two hundred peso (₱200.00) bill, with serial
Before the Court is an ordinary appeal1 assailing number L507313.8
the Decision2 dated January 29, 2014 of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR HC No. At around 5:10 in the afternoon of the same day,
01075, which affirmed in toto the the buy-bust team headed to the target area.
Decision3 dated August 10, 2009 of the Upon arrival, the poseur-buyer approached
Regional Trial Court of Iligan City, Branch 3 Sumili’s house to buy shabu. After Sumili let the
(RTC) in Crim. Case No. 12595 finding poseur-buyer in, the latter gave the pre-
accused-appellant Dennis Sumili (Sumili) guilty arranged signal that the sale has been
beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section consummated. Almost immediately, the buy-
5,4 Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) bust team stormed the house but Sumili
9165,5 otherwise known as the "Comprehensive escaped by jumping through the window,
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002." throwing the marked money at the roof beside
his house. The poseur-buyer turnedover the
The Facts sachet of suspected shabuto SPO2 Englatiera,
who marked the same with "DC-1," representing
On June 30, 2006, an Information6 was filed the initials of SPO2 Cabahug.9 SPO2 Englatiera
before the RTC charging Sumili of violating then prepared a request for laboratory
Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, viz.: examination and instructed Non-Uniform
Personnel Carlito Ong (NUP Ong) to bring the
Crim. Case No. 12595 sachet together with the request to the PNP
Crime Laboratory for examination. However,
That, on or about June 7, 2006, in the City of NUP Ong failed to do so on the same day as the
Iligan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of PNP Crime Laboratory was already closed.10 It
this Honorable Court, the said accused, without was only on June 9, 2006, or two (2) days after
having been authorized by law, did then and the buy-bust operation, that NUP Ong was able
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell one to bring and turn-over the seized sachet to the
(1) sachet of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, PNP Crime Laboratory.11 Upon examination, it
a dangerousdrug commonly known as Shabufor was confirmed thatsaid sachet contained 0.32
the amount of ₱200.00. grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride, or
shabu.12
Contrary to and in violation of Sec. 5, ART. II,
RA 9165, otherwise known as the In his defense, Sumili denied selling shabu. He
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. and his daughter claimed that he was a fishball
vendor, and that on the date and time of the
City of Iligan, June 30, 2006. incident, he was at the market buying
ingredients. When he returned to his residence,
According to the prosecution, on June 7, 2006, his wife told him that policemen were looking for
the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency Iligan him.13 The RTC Ruling
City Sub-Office received a report from a
In a Decision14 dated August 10, 2009, the RTC The issue for the Court’s resolution is whether
found Sumili guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Sumili’s conviction for violation of Section 5,
violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 and Article II of RA 9165 should be upheld.
accordingly, sentenced him to life imprisonment,
and ordered him to pay a fine in the amount of The Court’s Ruling
₱500,000.00.15
The appeal is meritorious.
The RTC found that a buy-bust operation indeed
occurred where Sumili sold the seized sachet to In order to convict an accused for violation of RA
the poseur-buyer. In this regard, it gave 9165, or the crime of sale of dangerous drugs,
credence to the straightforward and categorical the prosecution must establish the concurrence
testimonies of prosecution witnesses detailing of the following elements: (a) the identity of the
how the police officers received information that buyer and the seller, the object, and the
Sumili was selling shabu, investigated and consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing
confirmed that he indeed was selling shabu, sold and the payment.24 Note that what remains
conducted the buy-bust operation, recovered, material for conviction is the proof that the
marked, and transmitted the seized item from transaction actually took place, coupled with the
Sumilito the PNP Crime Laboratory, and that the presentation before the court of the corpus
laboratory results yielded positive for shabu. delicti.25 It is also important that the integrity and
Conversely, it did not give weight to the defense evidentiary value of the seized items be
testimonies which merely deniedthe existence preserved. Simply put, the dangerous drug
of the buy-bust operation and insisted that presented in court as evidence against an
Sumili was not selling drugs.16 accused must be the same as that seized from
him. The chain of custody requirement removes
Dissatisfied, Sumili appealed17 his conviction to any unnecessary doubts regarding the identity
the CA. of the evidence.26 As held in People v. Viterbo:27
The CA Ruling In every prosecution for illegal sale of

dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of
In a Decision18 dated January 29, 2014, the CA RA 9165, the following elements must concur:
affirmed Sumili’s conviction in toto.19 It agreed (a) the identities of the buyer and the seller,
with the RTC’s finding that a buy-bust operation object, and consideration; and (b) the delivery of
actually occurred, resulting in the seizure of a the thing sold and the corresponding payment
sachet containing shabu.20 Further, the CA also for it. As the dangerous drug itself forms an
held thatdespite the police officers’ integral and key part of the corpus delicti of the
noncompliance with the procedure enshrined in crime, it is thereforeessential that the identity of
Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, the identity and the prohibited drug be established beyond
integrity of the corpus delicti, or the seized drug reasonable doubt. Thus, the prosecution must
itself, was nevertheless preserved and, thus, be able to account for each link in the chain of
Sumili’s conviction must be sustained.21 custody over the dangerous drug, fromthe
moment it was seized from the accused up to
Finally, the CA opined that Sumili failed to rebut the time it was presented in court as proof of the
by clear and convincing evidence the corpus delicti.Elucidating on the custodial chain
presumption ofregularity in the performance of process, the Court, in the case of People v.
official duties enjoyed by the police officers Cervantes [(600 Phil. 819, 836 [2009])], held:
involved in the buy-bust operation.22
As a mode of authenticating evidence, the chain
Aggrieved, Sumili filed the instant appeal.23 of custody rule requires that the admission of an
exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to
The Issue Before the Court support a finding that the matter in question is
what the proponent claims it to be.1âwphi1In After a judicious review of the records, the Court
context, this would ideally include testimony finds that the prosecution failed to establish the
about every link in the chain, from the seizure of identity of the substance allegedly confiscated
the prohibited drug up to the time it is offered from Sumili due to unjustified gaps in the chain
into evidence, in such a way that everyone who of custody, thus, militating against a finding of
touched the exhibit would describe how and guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
from whom it was received, where it was and
what happened to it while in the witness’ As may be gleaned from the established facts,
possession, the condition in which it was the buy-bust operation was conducted on June
received, and the condition in which it was 7, 2006. When SPO2 Englatieraseized the
delivered to the next link in the chain. x x x. sachet from Sumili, he marked the same with
the initials "DC-1" and, later, he returned to the
The chain of custody requirement "ensures that police station to prepare the request for the
unnecessary doubts respecting the identity of examination of the sachet’s contents.
the evidence are minimized if not altogether Thereafter, he ordered NUP Ong to bring the
removed."28 (Emphases and underscoring sachet as well as the request to the PNP Crime
supplied) Laboratory for examination. However, NUP Ong
failed to do so within 24 hours after the buy-bust
To expand, Section 2129 of RA 9165 provides operation as he only delivered the sachet to the
the "chain of custody rule" outlining the PNP Crime Laboratory on June 9, 2006, or two
procedure that the apprehending officers should (2) days after the buy-bust operation.No other
follow in handling the seized drugs, in order to than SPO2 Englatiera and NUP Ong attested to
preserve its integrity and evidentiary value. It these facts intheir respective testimonies, to
requires, inter alia, that: (a) the apprehending wit:32 Prosecutor Celso Sarsaba (Pros.
team that has initial custody over the seized Sarsaba): Who prepared this request for
drugs immediately conduct an inventory and laboratory examination?
take photographs of the same in the presence
of the accused or the person from whom such SPO2 Englatiera: I myself, sir.
items were seized, orthe accused’s or the
person’s representative or counsel, a Q: What did you do with the requestfor the
representative from the media, the Department laboratory examination together with the one
of Justice, and any elected public official who sachet of shabu?
shall then sign the copies of the inventory; and
(b) the seized drugs be turned over to the PNP A: I instructed [NUP Ong] to turn-over the
Crime Laboratory within 24 hours from its evidence and bring for laboratory examination
confiscation for examination purposes. While (sic).
the "chain of custody rule" demands utmost
compliance from the aforesaid officers, Section Q: Was [NUP Ong] able to bring the request for
21 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations laboratory examination together with the sachet
(IRR) of RA 9165,30 as well as jurisprudence of shabu to the crime laboratory on that same
nevertheless provide that noncompliance with day?
the requirements of thisrule will not
automatically render the seizure and custody of A: The following day.
the items void and invalid, so long as: (a) there
is a justifiable ground for such non-compliance; Q: Why?
AND(b) the evidentiary value of the seized items
are properly preserved. Hence, any divergence A: Because it was already 5:00 o’clock (sic) sir I
from the prescribed procedure must be justified think it was Friday sir, the laboratory was
and should not affect the integrity and already closed.
evidentiary value of the confiscated items.31
xxxx PNP Crime Laboratory, presents a substantial

and unexplained gap in the chain of custody of
As for NUP Ong:33 the alleged shabu seized from Sumili.
Undoubtedly, the integrity and evidentiary value
Pros. Sarsaba: And how about the one sachet of the corpus delicti had been compromised.
of shabu allegedly bought from the accused,
who was in possession of that shabu at that It must be emphasized that in criminal
time? prosecutions involving illegal drugs, the
presentation of the drugs which constitute the
NUP Ong: SPO2 [Englatiera] placed it inside the corpus delicti of the crime calls for the necessity
cellophane attached together with the request. of proving with moral certainty that they are the
same seized items.35 Failing in which, the
Q: And who was supposed to bring that request acquittal of the accused on the ground of
for laboratory [examination] and the one sachet reasonable doubt becomes a matter of
of shabuallegedly purchased from the accused right,36 as in this case.
to the PNP crime laboratory?
In sum, since the identity of the prohibited drugs
A: No, it was already late at night so we agreed had not been established by proof beyond
to do it on the following day. reasonable doubt, Sumili's conviction must be
immediately set aside.
Q: So June 7, 2006, do you recall what day was
that? WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The
Decision dated January 29, 2014 of the Court of
A: I think it was [a] Friday. Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 01075 is hereby
REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and accordingly,
Q: And when did you bring this request for accused-appellant Dennis Sumili is
laboratory [examination] to the [PNP] crime ACQUITTED of the crime of violation of Section
laboratory, on what date? 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The
Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ordered
A: It was delivered on June 9, 2006. to cause his immediate release, unless he is
being lawfully held for any other reason.
xxxx
SO ORDERED.
To justify the delay inthe turn-over of the corpus
delicti, SPO2 Englatiera and NUP Ong insist
that the PNP Crime Laboratory was already
closed on June 7, 2006, and since it was a
Friday, the delivery of the seized sachet was
only done on June 9, 2006. However, contrary
to their claims, June 7, 2006 is not a Friday, but
a Wednesday.34Thus, if the PNP Crime
Laboratory was indeed closed on June 7, 2006,
the delivery of the seized sachet could have
easily been done on the next day, or on June 8,
2006, instead of doing it two (2) days after the
buy-bust operation. This glaring fact, coupled
with the absence in the records as to who
among the apprehending officers had actual
custody of the seized sachet from the time it was
prepared for turn-over until its delivery to the
G.R. No. 209588 February 18, 2015 Upon re-arraignment, accused-appellant

pleaded not guilty to the crime
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff- charged.5 Thereafter, pre-trial and trial on the
Appellee, merits ensued.
vs.
ERIC ROSAURO y BONGCAWIL, Accused- Based on the records, the prosecution’s version
Appellant. of the facts is as follows:
DECISION On October 13, 2002, on the basis of

unconfirmed reports that accused-appellant Eric
PEREZ, J.: Rosauro (Rosauro for brevity) was selling and
distributing drugs, the Provincial Drug
For the consideration of the Court is an appeal Enforcement Unit of Misamis Oriental
of the Decision1 dated 19 June 2013 of the Court conducted a test-buy operation in the
of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00552- Municipality of Villanueva, Misamis Oriental
MIN, which affirmed the Judgment2 dated 24 using a confidential agent. The confidential
November 2006 of the Regional Trial Court agent bought shabu from Rosauro at Purok 2,
(RTC), Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 25 in Barangay Katipunan, Villanueva, Misamis
Criminal Case No. 2004-856, finding accused- Oriental. The substance bought from Rosauro
appellant Eric Rosauro y Bongcawil (accused- was examined by the PNP crime laboratory and
appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of yielded a positive result for Methamphetamine
illegal sale of shabu under Sec. 5, Article II of Hydrochloride (commonly known as shabu).
Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. No. 9165) or the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, On July 3, 2004, the police authorities received
sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life information that again drugs were being
imprisonment and ordering him to pay a fine of distributed at Purok 3, Barangay Poblacion,
₱500,000.00. Villanueva, Misamis Oriental. Thus, at 5:30
o’clock in the afternoon, the Provincial Anti-
In an Amended Information dated 21 February Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Unit
2005,3 accused-appellant was charged with (PAID-SOTU) elements led by SPO4 Lorenzo
violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of R. A. No. 9165, to Larot and PO3 Juancho Dizon positioned
wit: themselves in the house of their confidential
agent.
That on the 3rd day of July, 2004at about 5:30
o’clock in the afternoon, more or less, at Purok There, the PAID-SOTU elements saw Rosauro
3, Barangay Poblacion, Municipality of negotiate with the confidential agent. In
Villanueva, Province of Misamis Oriental, exchange for the one (1) sachet of shabu given
Republic of the Philippines, and within the by Rosauro to the confidential agent, the latter
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above- gave him a marked 100-peso bill with serial
named accused, not being authorized by law to number YZ7 12579.
possess and to sell any dangerous drugs,
knowingly, willfully and feloniously, did then and After the transaction, Larot and Dizon came out
there, sell and convey to a third person, who of their hiding place and arrested Rosauro.
acted as a decoy in a buy bust operation, one Thereafter, the confidential agent handed the
(1) sachet of shabu, containing 0.04 grams (sic) sachet to Larot, who taped it, mark edit with the
of shabu, which when examined gave marking "Exhibit A", and placed it inside his
POSITIVE result to test for the presence of pocket. He also took pictures of Rosauro and
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu), a the drugs. In the police station, he prepared a
dangerous drug.4 Certificate of Inventory and a Request for
Laboratory Examination. Both the drugs and
Rosauro were then turned over to the Crime Hundred Thousand (PhP 500,000.00) Pesos
laboratory. and to pay the cost.
On the basis of the request made by Larot, The accused ERIC B. ROSAURO who has
Police Chief Inspector Ma. Leocy Mag-abo, the undergone preventive imprisonment shall be
Forensic Chemical Officer of PNP Crime credited in the service of his sentence consisting
Laboratory conducted a laboratory examination of deprivation of liberty, with the full time during
on the contents of the sachet, on accused- which he has undergone preventive
appellant, and the marked money. The imprisonment if the detention prisoner agrees
examination of the seized item yielded positive voluntarily in writing to abide by the same
result for methamphetamine hydrochloride disciplinary rule imposed upon convicted
(shabu); while the accused-appellant and the prisoners, except those disqualified by law.
marked money tested positive for the presence
of ultra-violet fluorescent powder.6 The sachet of shabu, Exh. "A" is confiscated and
forfeited in favor of the government to be
For his part, accused-appellant claims that he destroyed in accordance with law.8
was merely a victim of instigation:
Accused-appellant appealed before the CA,
Accused-appellant Rosauro, on the other hand, assigning a lone error:
tells a different tale. He testified that on July 3,
2004, the police asset went to his house four (4) I
times and convinced him to do an errand for
him. Rosauro refused to buy shabu as he did not THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN
know where to buy one. It was the confidential CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT
informant who told him to buy the prohibited WHEN HIS GUILT WAS NOT PROVEN
drug from a certain "Kael" and to deliver it to the BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.9
former’s house.It was also the informant who
gave the money to Rosauro to buy the shabu. After a review of the records, the CA affirmed
But Rosauro was not able to meet or buy directly the RTC Judgment. The appellate court ruled
from Kael because it was a young man who got that what transpired in the case at bar was an
and handed to him the shabu on the road. When entrapment and not an instigation;10 that all the
Rosauro went to the house of the confidential elements of illegal sale of regulated or
informant as instructed, he was arrested by prohibited drugs were duly proven;11 that the
SPO4 Larot and Dizon. The sachet of shabu non-presentation of the confidential agent in
was not even recovered from him but from the court is not fatal;12 that the inconsistencies in the
confidential informant.7 testimony of the lone witness of the prosecution
do not affect the result of the case;13 and that
Finding the evidence of the prosecution the apprehending team was able to preserve the
sufficient to establish the guilt of accused- integrity of the subject drug and that the
appellant, the RTC rendered a judgment of prosecution was able to present the required
conviction, viz.: unbroken chain in the custody of the subject
drug.14 Thus, the CA held:
IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, this
Court hereby renders Judgment finding accused WHEREFORE, the Judgment dated November
ERIC ROSAURO y BONGCAWIL, "guilty" 24, 2006 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 25,
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged Cagayan de Oro City in Criminal Case No.
in the information for selling and delivering a 2004-856 is hereby AFFIRMED.15
sachet of shabu to the poseur buyer a Violation
of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 and imposes Accused-appellant is now before the Court
a penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of Five seeking a review of his conviction.
After a thorough review of the records, however, Similarly, the presentation of an informant as
we dismiss the appeal. witness is not regarded as indispensable to the
success of a prosecution of a drug-dealing
It is apropos to reiterate here that where there is accused. As a rule, the informant is not
no showing that the trial court overlooked or presented in court for security reasons, in view
misinterpreted some material facts or that it of the need to protect the informant from the
gravely abused its discretion, the Court will not retaliation of the culprit arrested through his
disturb the trial court’s assessment of the facts efforts. Thereby, the confidentiality of the
and the credibility of the witnesses since the informant’s identity is protected in deference to
RTC was in a better position to assess and his invaluable services to law enforcement. Only
weigh the evidence presented during trial. when the testimony of the informant is
Settled too is the rule that the factual findings of considered absolutely essential in obtaining the
the appellate court sustaining those of the trial conviction of the culprit should the need to
court are binding on this Court, unless there is a protect his security be disregarded.18 In the
clear showing that such findings are tainted with present case, as the buy-bust operation was
arbitrariness, capriciousness or palpable duly witnessed by the Provincial Anti-Illegal
error.16 Drugs Special Operation Task Unit (PAID-
SOTU) elements led by SPO4 Lorenzo Larot
The RTC and the CA both found the arrest of (SPO4 Larot) and PO3 Juancho Dizon, their
accused-appellant to be the result of a testimonies can take the place of that of the
legitimate entrapment procedure, and we find confidential informant.
nothing in the records as to warrant a contrary
finding. In People v. Bartolome,17 we had the As to whether accused-appellant’s guilt was
occasion to discuss the legitimacy of a "decoy established beyond reasonable doubt, we rule
solicitation," to wit: in the affirmative.
It is no defense to the perpetrator of a crime that In a catena of cases, this Court laid down the
facilities for its commission were purposely essential elements to be duly established for a
placed in his way, or that the criminal act was successful prosecution of offenses involving the
done at the "decoy solicitation" of persons illegal sale of dangerous or prohibited drugs, like
seeking to expose the criminal, or that shabu, under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No.
detectives feigning complicity in the act were 9165, to wit: (1) the identity of the buyer and the
present and apparently assisting its seller, the object of the sale, and the
commission. Especially is this true in that class consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing
of cases where the office is one habitually sold and payment therefor. Briefly, the delivery
committed, and the solicitation merely furnishes of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the
evidence of a course of conduct. receipt of the marked money by the seller
successfully consummate the buy-bust
As here, the solicitation of drugs from appellant transaction. What is material, therefore, is the
by the informant utilized by the police merely proof that the transaction or sale transpired,
furnishes evidence of a course of conduct. The coupled with the presentation in court of the
police received an intelligence report that corpus delicti.19
appellant has been habitually dealing in illegal
drugs. They duly acted on it by utilizing an Verily, all the elements for a conviction of illegal
informant to effect a drug transaction with sale of dangerous or prohibited drugs were
appellant. There was no showing that the proven by the prosecution: the identity of
informant induced the appellant to sell illegal accused-appellant as the seller, and that of the
drugs to him.1âwphi1 confidential informant as poseur-buyer were
established, as well as the exchange of the
sachet of shabu and the marked money. It was
also ascertained that the seized item was representative from the media and the
positive for shabu, a dangerous drug, and that Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected
the same item was properly identified in open public official who shall be required to sign the
court by SPO4 Larot. Moreover, the ₱100.00 bill copies of the inventory and be given a copy
with serial number YZ712579, or the subject thereof.
marked money, as well as the living body of the
accused-appellant revealed a positive result for However, this Court has, in many cases, held
ultraviolet fluorescent powder. that while the chain of custody should ideally be
perfect, in reality it is "almost always impossible
Accused-appellant avers that the prosecution to obtain an unbroken chain." The most
was not able to prove the corpus delicti, and that important factor is the preservation of the
the statutory safeguards provided for in Sec. 21 integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized
of R.A. No. 9165 were not followed. items as they will be used to determine the guilt
or innocence of the accused. Hence, the
Indeed, as we held in People v. Torres,20 equally prosecution’s failure to submit in evidence the
important in every prosecution for illegal sale of physical inventory and photograph of the seized
dangerous or prohibited drugs is the drugs as required under Article 21 of R. A. No.
presentation of evidence of the seized drug as 9165, will not render the accused’s arrest illegal
the corpus delicti. The identity of the prohibited or the items seized from him inadmissible.21
drug must be proved with moral certainty. It
must also be established with the same degree The chain of custody is not established solely by
of certitude that the substance bought or seized compliance with the prescribed physical
during the buy-bust operation is the same item inventory and photographing of the seized drugs
offered in court as exhibit. In this regard, in the presence of the enumerated persons. The
paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of R. A. No. Implementing Rules and Regulations of R. A.
9165 (the chain of custody rule) provides for No. 9165 on the handling and disposition of
safeguards for the protection of the identity and seized dangerous drugs states:
integrity of dangerous drugs seized, to wit:
x x x Provided, further, that non-compliance with
SEC. 21. Custody and Disposition of these requirements under justifiable grounds, as
Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the
Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous seized items are properly preserved by the
Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential apprehending officer/team, shall not render void
Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or and invalid such seizures of and custody over
Laboratory Equipment. – The PDEA shall take said items.22 (Italics, emphasis, undescoring
charge and have custody of all dangerous omitted)
drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs,
controlled precursors and essential chemicals, In the case at bar, after the sale was
as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or consummated, the confidential informant gave
laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized the seized item to SPO4 Larot who placed tape
and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the on the sachet and marked it "Exhibit A." Upon
following manner: reaching the police station, SPO4 Larot
executed the Certificate of Inventory, as well as
(1) The apprehending team having initial the request for laboratory examination. The
custody and control of the drugs shall, request, the specimen, as well as the marked
immediately after seizure and confiscation, money and accused-appellant were then
physically inventory and photograph the same brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory for
in the presence of the accused or the person/s examination. They were received. by SPO2
from whom such items were confiscated and/or Ricardo Maisog, the Receiving Clerk of the PNP
seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a Crime Laboratory Office, who then forwarded
them to Police Inspector Ma. Leocy Jabonillo

Mag-abo, the Forensic Chemical Officer of the
PNP Crime Laboratory.23 Moreover, the seized
item was duly identified by SPO4 Larot in open
court as the same item seized from accused-
appellant.
Accused-appellant's guilt having been

established, we likewise affirm the penalty
imposed by the RTC and the CA. Under the law,
the offense of illegal sale of shabu carries with it
the penalty of life imprisonment to death and a
fine ranging from Five Hundred Thousand
Pesos (₱500,000.00) to Ten Million Pesos
(₱10,000,000.00), regardless of the quantity
and purity of the substance.24 Thus, the RTC
and CA were within bounds when they imposed
the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of
Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱500,000.00).
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the

present appeal is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 200748 July 23, 2014 records do not reveal whether De la Cruz was
likewise charged for extortion.
JAIME D. DELA CRUZ, Petitioner,
vs. VERSION OF THE PROSECUTION
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
The evidence of the prosecution reveals that at
DECISION 8:00 a.m. of 31 January 2006, the agents and
special investigators of the National Bureau of
SERENO, CJ: Investigation, Central Visayas Regional Office
(NBI-CEVRO) or simply NBI, received a
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari, filed Complaint from Corazon Absin (Corazon) and
by petitioner Jaime D. dela Cruz, from the Charito Escobido (Charito). The complainants
Decision1 dated 22 June 2011 issued by the claimed that at 1:00 a.m. of that same day, Ariel
Twentieth Division of the Court of Appeals (CA) Escobido (Ariel), the live-in partner of Corazon
and Resolution2 dated 2 February 2012 issued and son of Charito, was picked up by several
by the Former Twentieth Division of the CA in unknown male persons believed to be police
CA-G.R. C.R. No. 00670. officers for allegedly selling drugs. An errand
boy gave a number to the complainants, and
THE ANTECEDENT FACTS when the latter gave the number a ring, they
were instructed to proceed to the Gorordo
Petitioner Jaime D. dela Cruz was charged with Police Office located along Gorordo Avenue,
violation of Section 15, Article II of Republic Act Cebu City. In the said police office, they met
No. (R.A.) 9165, or The Comprehensive "James" who demanded from them ₱100,000,
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, by the Graft later lowered to ₱40,000, in exchange for the
Investigation and Prosecution Officer of the release of Ariel. After the meeting, the
Office of the Ombudsman - Visayas, in an complainants proceeded to the NBI-CEVRO to
Information3 dated 14 February 2006, which file a complaint and narrate the circumstances
reads: of the meeting to the authorities. While at the
NBI-CEVRO, Charitoeven received calls
That on or about the 31st day of January 2006, supposedly from "James" instructing her to
at Cebu City, Philippines, and within the bring the money as soon as possible.
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
abovenamed accused, JAIME D. DE LA CRUZ, The special investigators at the NBI-CEVRO
a public officer, having been duly appointed and verified the text messages received by the
qualified to such public position as Police Officer complainants.1âwphi1 A team was immediately
2 of the Philippine National Police (PNP) formed to implement an entrapment operation,
assigned in the Security Service Group of the which took place inside a Jollibee branch at the
Cebu City Police Office, after having corner of Gen. Maxilom and Gorordo Avenues,
beenarrested by agents of the National Bureau Cebu City. The officers were able to nab Jaime
of Investigation (NBI) in an entrapment dela Cruz by using a pre-marked 500 bill dusted
operation, was found positive for use of with fluorescent powder, which was made part
METHAMPHETAMINE of the amount demanded by "James" and
HYDROCHLORIDEcommonly known as handed by Corazon. Petitioner was later
"Shabu", the dangerous drug after a brought to the forensic laboratory of the NBI-
confirmatory test conducted on said accused. CEVRO where forensic examination was done
by forensic chemist Rommel Paglinawan.
CONTRARY TO LAW. Petitioner was required to submit his urine for
drug testing. It later yielded a positive result for
When arraigned, petitioner, assisted by counsel presence of dangerous drugs as indicated in the
de parte, pleaded not guilty to the charge. The confirmatory test result labeled as Toxicology
(DangerousDrugs) Report No. 2006-TDD-2402 states that drug testing conducted under
dated 16 February 2006. circumstancessimilar to his would violate a
person’s right to privacy. The appellate court
VERSION OF THE DEFENSE nevertheless denied the motion.
The defense presented petitioner as the lone Petitioner thus filed the present Petition for
witness. He denied the charges and testified Review on certiorari. He assigns as errors the
that while eating at the said Jollibee branch, he use of hearsay evidence as basis for his
was arrested allegedly for extortion by NBI conviction and the questionable circumstances
agents. When he was at the NBI Office, he was surrounding his arrest and drug test.
required to extract urine for drug examination,
but he refused saying he wanted it to be done Respondent, through the Office of the Solicitor
by the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime General, filed its Comment,6 saying that
Laboratory and not by the NBI. His request was, "petitioner’s arguments cannot be the subject of
however, denied. He also requested to be a petition for review on certiorariunder Rule 45,
allowed to call his lawyer prior to the taking of as they involve questions of facts which may not
his urine sample, to no avail. be the subject thereof; after his arraignment, he
can no longer contest the validity of his arrest,
THE RULING OF THE RTC less so at this stage of the proceedings; his guilt
has been adequately established by direct
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 58 of evidence; and the manner in which the
Cebu City, in its Decision4 dated 6 June 2007, laboratory examination was conducted was
found the accused guilty beyond reasonable grounded on a valid and existing law.
doubt of violating Section 15, Article II of R.A.
9165 and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of THE ISSUE
compulsory rehabilitation for a period of not less
than six (6) months at the Cebu Center for the We deem it proper to give due course to this
Ultimate Rehabilitation of Drug Dependents Petition by confronting head-on the issue of
located at Salinas, Lahug, Cebu City.5 whether or not the drug test conducted upon the
petitioner is legal.
Petitioner filed an appeal assigning as error the
RTC’s validation of the result of the urine test OUR RULING
despite its dubiousness having been admitted in
spite of the lack of legal basis for itsadmission. We declare that the drug testconducted upon
First, he alleges that the forensic laboratory petitioner is not grounded upon any existing law
examination was conducted despite the fact that or jurisprudence.
he was not assisted by counsel, in clear
violation of his constitutional right. Secondly, he We gloss over petitioner’s non-compliance with
was allegedly held guilty beyond reasonable the Resolution7 ordering him to submit clearly
doubt notwithstanding the lack of sufficient basis legible duplicate originals or certified true copies
to convict him. of the assailed Decision and Resolution.
Petitioner was charged with use of dangerous
THE RULING OF THE CA drugs in violation of the law, the pertinent
provision of which reads:
The CA found the appeal devoid of merit and
affirmed the ruling of the RTC. Section 15. Use of Dangerous Drugs. – A
person apprehended or arrested, who is found
Petitioner filed a timely Motion for to be positive for use of any dangerous drug,
Reconsideration. He argued that the CA after a confirmatory test, shall be imposed a
overlooked prevailing jurisprudence, which penalty of a minimum of six (6) months
rehabilitation in a government center for the first Hence, a drug test can be made upon persons
offense, subject to the provisions of Article VIII who are apprehended or arrested for, among
of this Act. If apprehended using any dangerous others, the "importation,"9 "sale, trading,
drug for the second time, he/she shall suffer the administration, dispensation, delivery,
penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) distribution and
years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years and transportation",10"manufacture"11 and
12
a fine ranging from Fifty thousand pesos "possession" of dangerous drugs and/or
(₱50,000.00) to Two hundred thousand pesos controlled precursors and essential chemicals;
(₱200,000.00): Provided,That this Section shall possession thereof "during parties, social
not be applicable where the person tested is gatherings or meetings"13 ; being "employees
also found to have in his/her possession such and visitors of a den, dive or
quantity of any dangerous drug provided for resort";14 "maintenance of a den, dive or
under Section 11 of this Act, in which case the resort";15 "illegal chemical diversion of
provisions stated therein shall apply.8 controlled precursors and essential
chemicals"16 ; "manufacture or delivery"17 or
The RTC subsequently convicted petitioner, "possession"18 of equipment, instrument,
ruling that the following elements of Section 15 apparatus, and other paraphernalia for
were established: (1) the accused was arrested; dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors
(2) the accused was subjected to drug test; and and essential chemicals; possession of
(3) the confirmatory test shows that he used a dangerous drugs "during parties, social
dangerous drug. gatherings or meetings"19 ; "unnecessary"20 or
"unlawful"21 prescription thereof; "cultivation or
Disregarding petitioner’s objection regarding the culture of plantsclassified as dangerous drugs
admissibility of the evidence, the lower court or are sources thereof";22 and "maintenance and
also reasoned that "a suspect cannot invoke his keeping of original records of transactions on
right to counsel when he is required to extract dangerous drugs and/orcontrolled precursors
urine because, while he is already in custody, and essential chemicals."23 To make the
he is not compelled to make a statement or provision applicable to all persons arrested or
testimony against himself. Extracting urine from apprehended for any crime not listed under
one’s body is merely a mechanical act, hence, Article II is tantamount to unduly expanding its
falling outside the concept of a custodial meaning. Note thataccused appellant here was
investigation." arrested in the alleged act of extortion.
We find the ruling and reasoning of the trial A charge for violation of Section 15 of R.A. 9165
court, as well as the subsequent affirmation by is seen as expressive of the intent of the law to
the CA, erroneous on three counts. rehabilitate persons apprehended or arrested
for the unlawful acts enumerated above instead
The drug test in Section 15 does not cover of charging and convicting them of other crimes
persons apprehended or arrested for any with heavier penalties. The essence of the
unlawful act, but only for unlawful acts listed provision is more clearly illustrated in People v.
under Article II of R.A. 9165. Martinez24 as follows:
First, "[a] person apprehended orarrested" On a final note, this Court takes the opportunity
cannot literally mean any person apprehended to be instructive on Sec. 11 (Possession of
or arrested for any crime.The phrase must be Dangerous Drugs) and Sec. 15 (Use of
read in context and understood in consonance Dangerous Drugs) of R.A. No. 9165, withregard
with R.A. 9165. Section 15 comprehends to the charges that are filed by law enforcers.
persons arrested or apprehended for unlawful This Court notes the practice of law enforcers of
acts listed under Article II of the law. filing charges under Sec. 11 in cases where the
presence of dangerous drugs as basis for
possession is only and solely in the form of In order to effectively fulfill the intent of the law
residue, being subsumed under the last to rehabilitate drug users, this Court thus calls
paragraph of Sec. 11. Although not incorrect, it on law enforcers and prosecutors in dangerous
would be more in keeping withthe intent of the drugs cases to exercise proper discretion in
law to file charges under Sec. 15 instead in filing charges when the presence of dangerous
order to rehabilitate first time offenders of drug drugs isonly and solely in the form of residue
use, provided thatthere is a positive and the confirmatory test required under Sec. 15
confirmatory test result as required under Sec. is positive for use of dangerous drugs.In such
15.The minimum penalty under the last cases, to afford the accused a chance to be
paragraph of Sec. 11 for the possession of rehabilitated, the filing of charges for or involving
residue isimprisonment of twelve years and one possession of dangerous drugs should only be
day, while the penalty under Sec. 15 for first time done when another separate quantity of
offenders of drug use is a minimum of six dangerous drugs, other than mere residue, is
months rehabilitation in a government center. found in the possession of the accused as
To file charges under Sec. 11 on the basis of provided for in Sec. 15. (Emphasis supplied)
residue alone would frustrate the objective of
the law to rehabilitate drug users and provide Furthermore, making the phrase "a person
them with an opportunity to recover for a second apprehended or arrested" in Section 15
chance at life. applicable to all persons arrested or
apprehended for unlawful acts, not only under
In the case at bench, the presence of dangerous R.A. 9165 but for all other crimes, is tantamount
drugs was only in the form of residue on the drug to a mandatory drug testing of all persons
paraphernalia, and the accused were found apprehended or arrested for any crime. To
positive for use of dangerous drugs. Granting overextend the application of thisprovision
that the arrest was legal, the evidence obtained would run counter to our pronouncement in
admissible, and the chain of custody intact, the Social Justice Society v. Dangerous Drugs
law enforcers should have filed charges under Board and Philippine Drug Enforcement
Sec. 15, R.A. No. 9165 or for use of dangerous Agency,25 to wit:
drugs and, if there was no residue at all, they
should have been charged under Sec. 14 x x x [M]andatory drug testing can never be
(Possession of Equipment, Instrument, random and suspicionless. The ideas of
Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for randomness and being suspicionless are
Dangerous Drugs During Parties, Social antithetical to their being made defendants in a
Gatherings or Meetings). Sec. 14 provides that criminal complaint. They are not randomly
the maximum penalty under Sec. picked; neither are they beyond suspicion.
12(Possession of Equipment, Instrument, When persons suspected of committing a crime
Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for are charged, they are singled out and are
Dangerous Drugs) shall be imposed on any impleaded against their will. The persons thus
person who shall possess any equipment, charged, by the bare fact of being haled before
instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia the prosecutor’s office and peaceably
for dangerous drugs. Under Sec. 12, the submitting themselves to drug testing, if that be
maximum penalty is imprisonment of four years the case, do not necessarily consent to the
and a fine of ₱50,000.00. In fact, under the procedure, let alone waive their right to privacy.
same section, the possession of such To impose mandatory drug testing on the
equipment, apparatus or other paraphernalia is accused is a blatant attempt to harness a
prima facieevidence that the possessor has medical test as a tool for criminal prosecution,
used a dangerous drug and shall be presumed contrary to the stated objectives of RA 6195.
to have violated Sec. 15. Drug testing in this case would violate a
person’s right to privacy guaranteed under Sec.
2, Art. III of the Constitution. Worse still, the
accused persons are veritably forced to victim;(U.S. vs. Tan Teng, 23 Phil. 145 [1912])
incriminate themselves. (Emphasis supplied) to expel morphine from his mouth; (U.S. vs. Ong
Siu Hong, 36 Phil. 735 [1917]) to have the
The drug test is not covered by allowable non- outline of his foot traced todetermine its identity
testimonial compulsion. with bloody footprints; (U.S. vs. Salas, 25 Phil.
337 [1913]; U.S. vs. Zara, 42 Phil. 308 [1921])
We find that petitioner never raisedthe alleged and to be photographed or measured, or his
irregularity of his arrest before his arraignment garments or shoes removed or replaced, or to
and raises the issue only now before this move his body to enable the foregoing things to
tribunal; hence, he is deemed to have waived be done.(People vs. Otadora, 86 Phil. 244
his right to question the validity of his arrest [1950])28(Emphasis supplied)
curing whatever defect may have attended his
arrest.26 However, "a waiver of an illegal In the instant case, we fail to see howa urine
warrantless arrest does not mean a waiver of sample could be material to the charge of
the inadmissibility of evidence seized during an extortion.1âwphi1 The RTC and the CA,
illegal warrantless arrest."27 therefore, both erred when they held that the
extraction of petitioner’s urine for purposes of
We are aware of the prohibition against drug testing was "merely a mechanical act,
testimonial compulsion and the allowable hence, falling outside the concept of a custodial
exceptions to such proscription. Cases where investigation."
non-testimonial compulsion has been allowed
reveal, however, that the pieces of evidence We note a case where a urine sample was
obtained were all material to the principal cause considered as admissible. In Gutang v.
of the arrest. People,29 the petitioner therein and his
companions were arrested in connection with
The constitutional right of an accused against the enforcement of a search warrant in his
self-incrimination proscribes the use of physical residence. A PNP-NARCOM team found and
or moral compulsion to extort communications confiscated shabu materials and
from the accused and not the inclusion of his paraphernalias. The petitioner and his
body in evidence when it may be material. companions in that case were also asked to give
Purely mechanical acts are not included in the urine samples, which yielded positive results.
prohibition as the accused does not thereby Later, the petitioner therein was found guilty of
speak his guilt, hence the assistance and the crime of illegal possession and use of
guiding hand ofcounsel is not required. (People prohibited drugs. Gutang claimed that the
vs. Olvis, 238 Phil. 513 [1987]) The essence of latter’s urine sample was inadmissible in
the right against selfincrimination is testimonial evidence, since it was derived in effect from an
compulsion, that is, the giving of evidence uncounselled extrajudicial confession.
against himself through a testimonial act.
(People vs. Casinillo, 213 SCRA 777 [1992]; In the Gutang et al.case, the Court clarified that
People vs. Tranca, 235 SCRA 455 [1994]; "what the Constitution prohibits is the use of
People vs. Rondero, 378 Phil. 123 [1999]) physical or moral compulsion to extort
Hence,it has been held that a woman charged communication from the accused, but not an
with adultery may be compelled to submit to inclusion of his body in evidence, when it may
physical examination to determine her be material." The situation in Gutangwas
pregnancy; (Villaflor vs. Summers, 41 Phil. 62 categorized as falling among the exemptions
[1920]) and an accused may be compelled to under the freedom from testimonial compulsion
submit to physical examination and to have a since what was sought tobe examined came
substance taken from his body for medical from the body of the accused. The Court said:
determination as to whether he was suffering
from gonorrhea which was contracted by his
This was a mechanical act the accused was inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of
made to undergo which was not meant to arrest shall issue except upon probable cause
unearth undisclosedfacts but to ascertain to be determined personally by the judge after
physical attributes determinable by simple examination under oath or affirmation of the
observation. In fact, the record shows that complainant and the witnesses he may produce,
petitioner and his co-accused were not and particularly describing the place to be
compelled to give samples of their urine but they searched and the persons or things to be
in fact voluntarily gave the same when they seized.
were requested to undergo a drug test.
Section 17. No person shall be compelled to be
Assuming arguendothat the urine samples a witness against himself.
taken from the petitioner are inadmissible in
evidence, we agree with the trial court that the In the face of these constitutional guarantees,
record is replete with other pieces of credible we cannot condone drug testing of all arrested
evidence including the testimonial evidence of persons regardless of the crime or offense for
the prosecution which point to the culpability of which the arrest is being made.
the petitioner for the crimes charged.
While we express our commendation of law
We emphasize that the circumstances in enforcement agents as they vigorously track
Gutangare clearly different from the down offenders intheir laudable effort to curb the
circumstances of petitioner in the instant pervasive and deleterious effects of dangerous
case.1awp++i1 First, Gutang was arrested in drugs on our society, they must, however, be
relation to a drug case. Second, he volunteered constantly mindful of the reasonable limits of
to give his urine. Third, there were other pieces their authority, because it is not unlikely that in
of evidence that point to his culpability for the their clear intent to purge society of its lawless
crimes charged. In the present case, though, elements, they may be knowingly or
petitioner was arrested for extortion; he resisted unknowingly transgressing the protected rights
having his urine sample taken; and finally, his of its citizens including even members of its own
urine sample was the only available police force.
evidencethat was used as basis for his
conviction for the use of illegal drugs. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
assailed Decision dated 22 June 2011 issued by
The drug test was a violation of petitioner’s right the Twentieth Division, and the Resolution
to privacy and right against self-incrimination. dated 2 February 2012 issued by the former
Twentieth Division of the Court of Appeals, in
It is incontrovertible that petitioner refused to CA-G.R. C.R. No. 00670 are SET ASIDE.
have his urine extracted and tested for drugs. Petitioner is hereby ACQUITTED.
He also asked for a lawyer prior to his urine test.
He was adamant in exercising his rights, but all SO ORDERED.
of his efforts proved futile, because he was still
compelled to submit his urine for drug testing
under those circumstances.
The pertinent provisions in Article III of the

Constitution are clear:
Section 2. The right of the people to be securein

their persons, houses, papers, and effects
against unreasonable searches and seizures of
whatever nature and for any purpose shall be
G.R. No. 157870 November 3, 2008 testing laboratories accredited and monitored by
the DOH to safeguard the quality of the test
SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY (SJS), petitioner results. x x x The drug testing shall employ,
vs. among others, two (2) testing methods, the
DANGEROUS DRUGS BOARD and screening test which will determine the positive
PHILIPPINE DRUG ENFORCEMENT result as well as the type of drug used and the
AGENCY (PDEA),respondents. confirmatory test which will confirm a positive
screening test. x x x The following shall be
x--------------------------------- subjected to undergo drug testing:
--------------x
xxxx
G.R. No. 158633 November 3, 2008
(c) Students of secondary and tertiary schools.
ATTY. MANUEL J. LASERNA, JR., petitioner - Students of secondary and tertiary schools
vs. shall, pursuant to the related rules and
DANGEROUS DRUGS BOARD and regulations as contained in the school's student
PHILIPPINE DRUG ENFORCEMENT handbook and with notice to the parents,
AGENCY, respondents. undergo a random drug testing x x x;
x--------------------------------- (d) Officers and employees of public and private

--------------x offices. - Officers and employees of public and
private offices, whether domestic or overseas,
G.R. No. 161658 November 3, 2008 shall be subjected to undergo a random drug
test as contained in the company's work rules
AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, JR., petitioner and regulations, x x x for purposes of reducing
vs. the risk in the workplace. Any officer or
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondents. employee found positive for use of dangerous
drugs shall be dealt with administratively which
DECISION shall be a ground for suspension or termination,
subject to the provisions of Article 282 of the
VELASCO, JR., J.: Labor Code and pertinent provisions of the Civil
Service Law;
In these kindred petitions, the constitutionality of
Section 36 of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, xxxx
otherwise known as the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, insofar as it (f) All persons charged before the prosecutor's
requires mandatory drug testing of candidates office with a criminal offense having an
for public office, students of secondary and imposable penalty of imprisonment of not less
tertiary schools, officers and employees of than six (6) years and one (1) day shall undergo
public and private offices, and persons charged a mandatory drug test;
before the prosecutor's office with certain
offenses, among other personalities, is put in (g) All candidates for public office whether
issue. appointed or elected both in the national or local
government shall undergo a mandatory drug
As far as pertinent, the challenged section reads test.
as follows:
In addition to the above stated penalties in this
SEC. 36. Authorized Drug Testing. - Authorized Section, those found to be positive for
drug testing shall be done by any government dangerous drugs use shall be subject to the
forensic laboratories or by any of the drug provisions of Section 15 of this Act.
G.R. No. 161658 (Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr. v. drug testing laboratories monitored and
Commission on Elections) accredited by the Department of Health.
On December 23, 2003, the Commission on SEC. 3. x x x

Elections (COMELEC) issued Resolution No.
6486, prescribing the rules and regulations on On March 25, 2004, in addition to the drug
the mandatory drug testing of candidates for certificates filed with their respective offices, the
public office in connection with the May 10, 2004 Comelec Offices and employees concerned
synchronized national and local elections. The shall submit to the Law Department two (2)
pertinent portions of the said resolution read as separate lists of candidates. The first list shall
follows: consist of those candidates who complied with
the mandatory drug test while the second list
WHEREAS, Section 36 (g) of Republic Act No. shall consist of those candidates who failed to
9165 provides: comply x x x.
SEC. 36. Authorized Drug Testing. - x x x SEC. 4. Preparation and publication of names of
candidates. - Before the start of the campaign
xxxx period, the [COMELEC] shall prepare two
separate lists of candidates. The first list shall
(g) All candidates for public office x x x both in consist of those candidates who complied with
the national or local government shall undergo the mandatory drug test while the second list
a mandatory drug test. shall consist of those candidates who failed to
comply with said drug test. x x x
WHEREAS, Section 1, Article XI of the 1987
Constitution provides that public officers and SEC. 5. Effect of failure to undergo mandatory
employees must at all times be accountable to drug test and file drug test certificate. - No
the people, serve them with utmost person elected to any public office shall enter
responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency; upon the duties of his office until he has
undergone mandatory drug test and filed with
WHEREAS, by requiring candidates to undergo the offices enumerated under Section 2 hereof
mandatory drug test, the public will know the the drug test certificate herein required.
quality of candidates they are electing and they (Emphasis supplied.)
will be assured that only those who can serve
with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and Petitioner Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr., a senator of
efficiency would be elected x x x. the Republic and a candidate for re - election in
the May 10, 2004 elections,1 filed a Petition for
NOW THEREFORE, The [COMELEC], Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65. In it, he
pursuant to the authority vested in it under the seeks (1) to nullify Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165 and
Constitution, Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 COMELEC Resolution No. 6486 dated
(Omnibus Election Code), [RA] 9165 and other December 23, 2003 for being unconstitutional in
election laws, RESOLVED to promulgate, as it that they impose a qualification for candidates
hereby promulgates, the following rules and for senators in addition to those already
regulations on the conduct of mandatory drug provided for in the 1987 Constitution; and (2) to
testing to candidates for public office[:] enjoin the COMELEC from implementing
Resolution No. 6486.
SECTION 1. Coverage. - All candidates for
public office, both national and local, in the Pimentel invokes as legal basis for his petition
May 10, 2004 Synchronized National and Sec. 3, Article VI of the Constitution, which
Local Elections shall undergo mandatory drug states:
test in government forensic laboratories or any
SECTION 3. No person shall be a Senator Petitioner Atty. Manuel J. Laserna, Jr., as citizen
unless he is a natural - born citizen of the and taxpayer, also seeks in his Petition for
Philippines, and, on the day of the election, is at Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65 that
least thirty - five years of age, able to read and Sec. 36(c), (d), (f), and (g) of RA 9165 be struck
write, a registered voter, and a resident of the down as unconstitutional for infringing on the
Philippines for not less than two years constitutional right to privacy, the right against
immediately preceding the day of the election. unreasonable search and seizure, and the right
against self - incrimination, and for being
According to Pimentel, the Constitution only contrary to the due process and equal protection
prescribes a maximum of five (5) qualifications guarantees.
for one to be a candidate for, elected to, and be
a member of the Senate. He says that both the The Issue on Locus Standi
Congress and COMELEC, by requiring, via RA
9165 and Resolution No. 6486, a senatorial First off, we shall address the justiciability of the
aspirant, among other candidates, to undergo a cases at bench and the matter of the standing
mandatory drug test, create an additional of petitioners SJS and Laserna to sue. As
qualification that all candidates for senator must respondents DDB and PDEA assert, SJS and
first be certified as drug free. He adds that there Laserna failed to allege any incident amounting
is no provision in the Constitution authorizing to a violation of the constitutional rights
the Congress or COMELEC to expand the mentioned in their separate petitions.2
qualification requirements of candidates for
senator. It is basic that the power of judicial review can
only be exercised in connection with a bona
G.R. No. 157870 (Social Justice Society v. fidecontroversy which involves the statute
Dangerous sought to be reviewed.3 But even with the
Drugs Board and Philippine Drug Enforcement presence of an actual case or controversy, the
Agency) Court may refuse to exercise judicial review
unless the constitutional question is brought
In its Petition for Prohibition under Rule 65, before it by a party having the requisite standing
petitioner Social Justice Society (SJS), a to challenge it.4 To have standing, one must
registered political party, seeks to prohibit the establish that he or she has suffered some
Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) and the actual or threatened injury as a result of the
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) allegedly illegal conduct of the government; the
from enforcing paragraphs (c), (d), (f), and (g) of injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action;
Sec. 36 of RA 9165 on the ground that they are and the injury is likely to be redressed by a
constitutionally infirm. For one, the provisions favorable action.5
constitute undue delegation of legislative power
when they give unbridled discretion to schools The rule on standing, however, is a matter of
and employers to determine the manner of drug procedure; hence, it can be relaxed for non -
testing. For another, the provisions trench in the traditional plaintiffs, like ordinary citizens,
equal protection clause inasmuch as they can taxpayers, and legislators when the public
be used to harass a student or an employee interest so requires, such as when the matter is
deemed undesirable. And for a third, a person's of transcendental importance, of overarching
constitutional right against unreasonable significance to society, or of paramount public
searches is also breached by said provisions. interest.6 There is no doubt that Pimentel, as
senator of the Philippines and candidate for the
G.R. No. 158633 (Atty. Manuel J. Laserna, Jr. May 10, 2004 elections, possesses the requisite
v. Dangerous standing since he has substantial interests in
Drugs Board and Philippine Drug Enforcement the subject matter of the petition, among other
Agency) preliminary considerations. Regarding SJS and
Laserna, this Court is wont to relax the rule Pimentel's contention is well - taken.
on locus standi owing primarily to the Accordingly, Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165 should be,
transcendental importance and the paramount as it is hereby declared as, unconstitutional. It is
public interest involved in the enforcement of basic that if a law or an administrative rule
Sec. 36 of RA 9165. violates any norm of the Constitution, that
issuance is null and void and has no effect. The
The Consolidated Issues Constitution is the basic law to which all laws
must conform; no act shall be valid if it conflicts
The principal issues before us are as follows: with the Constitution.8 In the discharge of their
defined functions, the three departments of
(1) Do Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165 and COMELEC government have no choice but to yield
Resolution No. 6486 impose an additional obedience to the commands of the Constitution.
qualification for candidates for senator? Whatever limits it imposes must be observed.9
Corollarily, can Congress enact a law
prescribing qualifications for candidates for Congress' inherent legislative powers, broad as
senator in addition to those laid down by the they may be, are subject to certain limitations.
Constitution? and As early as 1927, in Government v. Springer,
the Court has defined, in the abstract, the limits
(2) Are paragraphs (c), (d), (f), and (g) of Sec. on legislative power in the following wise:
36, RA 9165 unconstitutional? Specifically, do
these paragraphs violate the right to privacy, the Someone has said that the powers of the
right against unreasonable searches and legislative department of the Government, like
seizure, and the equal protection clause? Or do the boundaries of the ocean, are unlimited. In
they constitute undue delegation of legislative constitutional governments, however, as well as
power? governments acting under delegated authority,
the powers of each of the departments x x x are
Pimentel Petition limited and confined within the four walls of the
(Constitutionality of Sec. 36[g] of RA 9165 constitution or the charter, and each department
and can only exercise such powers as are
COMELEC Resolution No. 6486) necessarily implied from the given powers. The
Constitution is the shore of legislative authority
In essence, Pimentel claims that Sec. 36(g) of against which the waves of legislative
RA 9165 and COMELEC Resolution No. 6486 enactment may dash, but over which it cannot
illegally impose an additional qualification on leap.10
candidates for senator. He points out that,
subject to the provisions on nuisance Thus, legislative power remains limited in the
candidates, a candidate for senator needs only sense that it is subject to substantive and
to meet the qualifications laid down in Sec. 3, constitutional limitations which circumscribe
Art. VI of the Constitution, to wit: (1) citizenship, both the exercise of the power itself and the
(2) voter registration, (3) literacy, (4) age, and allowable subjects of legislation.11 The
(5) residency. Beyond these stated qualification substantive constitutional limitations are chiefly
requirements, candidates for senator need not found in the Bill of Rights12 and other provisions,
possess any other qualification to run for such as Sec. 3, Art. VI of the Constitution
senator and be voted upon and elected as prescribing the qualifications of candidates for
member of the Senate. The Congress cannot senators.
validly amend or otherwise modify these
qualification standards, as it cannot disregard, In the same vein, the COMELEC cannot, in the
evade, or weaken the force of a constitutional guise of enforcing and administering election
mandate,7 or alter or enlarge the Constitution. laws or promulgating rules and regulations to
implement Sec. 36(g), validly impose
qualifications on candidates for senator in deals with candidates for public office, it stands
addition to what the Constitution prescribes. If to reason that the adverse consequence
Congress cannot require a candidate for adverted to can only refer to and revolve around
senator to meet such additional qualification, the the election and the assumption of public office
COMELEC, to be sure, is also without such of the candidates. Any other construal would
power. The right of a citizen in the democratic reduce the mandatory nature of Sec. 36(g) of
process of election should not be defeated by RA 9165 into a pure jargon without meaning and
unwarranted impositions of requirement not effect whatsoever.
otherwise specified in the Constitution.13
While it is anti - climactic to state it at this
Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165, as sought to be juncture, COMELEC Resolution No. 6486 is no
implemented by the assailed COMELEC longer enforceable, for by its terms, it was
resolution, effectively enlarges the qualification intended to cover only the May 10, 2004
requirements enumerated in the Sec. 3, Art. VI synchronized elections and the candidates
of the Constitution. As couched, said Sec. 36(g) running in that electoral event. Nonetheless, to
unmistakably requires a candidate for senator to obviate repetition, the Court deems it
be certified illegal - drug clean, obviously as a appropriate to review and rule, as it hereby
pre - condition to the validity of a certificate of rules, on its validity as an implementing
candidacy for senator or, with like effect, a issuance.
condition sine qua non to be voted upon and, if
proper, be proclaimed as senator - elect. The It ought to be made abundantly clear, however,
COMELEC resolution completes the chain with that the unconstitutionality of Sec. 36(g) of RA
the proviso that "[n]o person elected to any 9165 is rooted on its having infringed the
public office shall enter upon the duties of his constitutional provision defining the qualification
office until he has undergone mandatory drug or eligibility requirements for one aspiring to run
test." Viewed, therefore, in its proper context, for and serve as senator.
Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165 and the implementing
COMELEC Resolution add another qualification SJS Petition
layer to what the 1987 Constitution, at the (Constitutionality of Sec. 36[c], [d], [f], and
minimum, requires for membership in the [g] of RA 9165)
Senate. Whether or not the drug - free bar set
up under the challenged provision is to be The drug test prescribed under Sec. 36(c), (d),
hurdled before or after election is really of no and (f) of RA 9165 for secondary and tertiary
moment, as getting elected would be of little level students and public and private
value if one cannot assume office for non - employees, while mandatory, is a random and
compliance with the drug - testing requirement. suspicionless arrangement. The objective is to
stamp out illegal drug and safeguard in the
It may of course be argued, in defense of the process "the well being of [the] citizenry,
validity of Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165, that the particularly the youth, from the harmful effects of
provision does not expressly state that non - dangerous drugs." This statutory purpose, per
compliance with the drug test imposition is a the policy - declaration portion of the law, can be
disqualifying factor or would work to nullify a achieved via the pursuit by the state of "an
certificate of candidacy. This argument may be intensive and unrelenting campaign against the
accorded plausibility if the drug test requirement trafficking and use of dangerous drugs x x x
is optional. But the particular section of the law, through an integrated system of planning,
without exception, made drug - testing on those implementation and enforcement of anti - drug
covered mandatory, necessarily suggesting that abuse policies, programs and projects."14 The
the obstinate ones shall have to suffer the primary legislative intent is not criminal
adverse consequences for not adhering to the prosecution, as those found positive for illegal
statutory command. And since the provision drug use as a result of this random testing are
not necessarily treated as criminals. They may medium of mandatory random drug testing
even be exempt from criminal liability should the among students and employees is, in this
illegal drug user consent to undergo jurisdiction, made the focal point. Thus, the
rehabilitation. Secs. 54 and 55 of RA 9165 are issue tendered in these proceedings is veritably
clear on this point: one of first impression.
Sec. 54. Voluntary Submission of a Drug US jurisprudence is, however, a rich source of
Dependent to Confinement, Treatment and persuasive jurisprudence. With respect to
Rehabilitation. - A drug dependent or any random drug testing among school children, we
person who violates Section 15 of this Act may, turn to the teachings of Vernonia School District
by himself/herself or through his/her parent, 47J v. Acton (Vernonia) and Board of Education
[close relatives] x x x apply to the Board x x x for of Independent School District No. 92 of
treatment and rehabilitation of the drug Pottawatomie County, et al. v. Earls, et al.
dependency. Upon such application, the Board (Board of Education),18 both fairly pertinent US
shall bring forth the matter to the Court which Supreme Court - decided cases involving the
shall order that the applicant be examined for constitutionality of governmental search.
drug dependency. If the examination x x x
results in the certification that the applicant is a In Vernonia, school administrators in Vernonia,
drug dependent, he/she shall be ordered by the Oregon wanted to address the drug menace in
Court to undergo treatment and rehabilitation in their respective institutions following the
a Center designated by the Board x x x. discovery of frequent drug use by school
athletes. After consultation with the parents,
xxxx they required random urinalysis drug testing for
the school's athletes. James Acton, a high
Sec. 55. Exemption from the Criminal Liability school student, was denied participation in the
Under the Voluntary Submission Program. - A football program after he refused to undertake
drug dependent under the voluntary submission the urinalysis drug testing. Acton forthwith sued,
program, who is finally discharged from claiming that the school's drug testing policy
confinement, shall be exempt from the criminal violated, inter alia, the Fourth Amendment19 of
liability under Section 15 of this Act subject to the US Constitution.
the following conditions:
The US Supreme Court, in fashioning a solution
xxxx to the issues raised in Vernonia, considered the
following: (1) schools stand in loco parentis over
School children, the US Supreme Court noted, their students; (2) school children, while not
are most vulnerable to the physical, shedding their constitutional rights at the school
psychological, and addictive effects of drugs. gate, have less privacy rights; (3) athletes have
Maturing nervous systems of the young are less privacy rights than non - athletes since the
more critically impaired by intoxicants and are former observe communal undress before and
more inclined to drug dependency. Their after sports events; (4) by joining the sports
recovery is also at a depressingly low rate.15 activity, the athletes voluntarily subjected
themselves to a higher degree of school
The right to privacy has been accorded supervision and regulation; (5) requiring urine
recognition in this jurisdiction as a facet of the samples does not invade a student's privacy
right protected by the guarantee against since a student need not undress for this kind of
unreasonable search and seizure16 under Sec. drug testing; and (6) there is need for the drug
2, Art. III17 of the Constitution. But while the right testing because of the dangerous effects of
to privacy has long come into its own, this case illegal drugs on the young. The US Supreme
appears to be the first time that the validity of a Court held that the policy constituted reasonable
state - decreed search or intrusion through the search under the Fourth20 and 14th
Amendments and declared the random drug - random, and suspicionless drug testing of
testing policy constitutional. students are constitutional. Indeed, it is within
the prerogative of educational institutions to
In Board of Education, the Board of Education require, as a condition for admission,
of a school in Tecumseh, Oklahoma required a compliance with reasonable school rules and
drug test for high school students desiring to join regulations and policies. To be sure, the right to
extra - curricular activities. Lindsay Earls, a enroll is not absolute; it is subject to fair,
member of the show choir, marching band, and reasonable, and equitable requirements.
academic team declined to undergo a drug test
and averred that the drug - testing policy made The Court can take judicial notice of the
to apply to non - athletes violated the Fourth and proliferation of prohibited drugs in the country
14th Amendments. As Earls argued, unlike that threatens the well - being of the
athletes who routinely undergo physical people,21 particularly the youth and school
examinations and undress before their peers in children who usually end up as victims.
locker rooms, non - athletes are entitled to more Accordingly, and until a more effective method
privacy. is conceptualized and put in motion, a random
drug testing of students in secondary and
The US Supreme Court, citing Vernonia, upheld tertiary schools is not only acceptable but may
the constitutionality of drug testing even among even be necessary if the safety and interest of
non - athletes on the basis of the school's the student population, doubtless a legitimate
custodial responsibility and authority. In so concern of the government, are to be promoted
ruling, said court made no distinction between a and protected. To borrow from Vernonia,
non - athlete and an athlete. It ratiocinated that "[d]eterring drug use by our Nation's
schools and teachers act in place of the parents schoolchildren is as important as enhancing
with a similar interest and duty of safeguarding efficient enforcement of the Nation's laws
the health of the students. And in holding that against the importation of drugs"; the necessity
the school could implement its random drug - for the State to act is magnified by the fact that
testing policy, the Court hinted that such a test the effects of a drug - infested school are visited
was a kind of search in which even a reasonable not just upon the users, but upon the entire
parent might need to engage. student body and faculty.22 Needless to stress,
the random testing scheme provided under the
In sum, what can reasonably be deduced from law argues against the idea that the testing aims
the above two cases and applied to this to incriminate unsuspecting individual students.
jurisdiction are: (1) schools and their
administrators stand in loco parentis with Just as in the case of secondary and tertiary
respect to their students; (2) minor students level students, the mandatory but random drug
have contextually fewer rights than an adult, and test prescribed by Sec. 36 of RA 9165 for
are subject to the custody and supervision of officers and employees of public and private
their parents, guardians, and schools; (3) offices is justifiable, albeit not exactly for the
schools, acting in loco parentis, have a duty to same reason. The Court notes in this regard that
safeguard the health and well - being of their petitioner SJS, other than saying that
students and may adopt such measures as may "subjecting almost everybody to drug testing,
reasonably be necessary to discharge such without probable cause, is unreasonable, an
duty; and (4) schools have the right to impose unwarranted intrusion of the individual right to
conditions on applicants for admission that are privacy,"23 has failed to show how the
fair, just, and non-discriminatory. mandatory, random, and suspicionless drug
testing under Sec. 36(c) and (d) of RA 9165
Guided by Vernonia and Board of Education, violates the right to privacy and constitutes
the Court is of the view and so holds that the unlawful and/or unconsented search under Art.
provisions of RA 9165 requiring mandatory, III, Secs. 1 and 2 of the Constitution.24 Petitioner
Laserna's lament is just as simplistic, sweeping, procedures," the probable - cause standard is
and gratuitous and does not merit serious not required or even practicable. Be that as it
consideration. Consider what he wrote without may, the review should focus on the
elaboration: reasonableness of the challenged
administrative search in question.
The US Supreme Court and US Circuit Courts
of Appeals have made various rulings on the The first factor to consider in the matter of
constitutionality of mandatory drug tests in the reasonableness is the nature of the privacy
school and the workplaces. The US courts have interest upon which the drug testing, which
been consistent in their rulings that the effects a search within the meaning of Sec. 2,
mandatory drug tests violate a citizen's Art. III of the Constitution, intrudes. In this case,
constitutional right to privacy and right against the office or workplace serves as the backdrop
unreasonable search and seizure. They are for the analysis of the privacy expectation of the
quoted extensively hereinbelow.25 employees and the reasonableness of drug
testing requirement. The employees' privacy
The essence of privacy is the right to be left interest in an office is to a large extent
alone.26 In context, the right to privacy means circumscribed by the company's work policies,
the right to be free from unwarranted the collective bargaining agreement, if any,
exploitation of one's person or from intrusion entered into by management and the bargaining
into one's private activities in such a way as to unit, and the inherent right of the employer to
cause humiliation to a person's ordinary maintain discipline and efficiency in the
sensibilities. 27 And while there has been workplace. Their privacy expectation in a
general agreement as to the basic function of regulated office environment is, in fine, reduced;
the guarantee against unwarranted search, and a degree of impingement upon such privacy
"translation of the abstract prohibition against has been upheld.
‘unreasonable searches and seizures' into
workable broad guidelines for the decision of Just as defining as the first factor is the
particular cases is a difficult task," to borrow character of the intrusion authorized by the
from C. Camara v. Municipal Court.28 Authorities challenged law. Reduced to a question form, is
are agreed though that the right to privacy yields the scope of the search or intrusion clearly set
to certain paramount rights of the public and forth, or, as formulated in Ople v. Torres, is the
defers to the state's exercise of police power. 29 enabling law authorizing a search "narrowly
drawn" or "narrowly focused"?32
As the warrantless clause of Sec. 2, Art III of the
Constitution is couched and as has been held, The poser should be answered in the
"reasonableness" is the touchstone of the affirmative. For one, Sec. 36 of RA 9165 and its
validity of a government search or implementing rules and regulations (IRR), as
intrusion.30 And whether a search at issue hews couched, contain provisions specifically
to the reasonableness standard is judged by the directed towards preventing a situation that
balancing of the government - mandated would unduly embarrass the employees or
intrusion on the individual's privacy interest place them under a humiliating experience.
against the promotion of some compelling state While every officer and employee in a private
interest.31 In the criminal context, establishment is under the law deemed
reasonableness requires showing of probable forewarned that he or she may be a possible
cause to be personally determined by a judge. subject of a drug test, nobody is really singled
Given that the drug - testing policy for out in advance for drug testing. The goal is to
employees--and students for that matter--under discourage drug use by not telling in advance
RA 9165 is in the nature of administrative anyone when and who is to be tested. And as
search needing what was referred to may be observed, Sec. 36(d) of RA 9165 itself
in Vernonia as "swift and informal disciplinary prescribes what, in Ople, is a narrowing
ingredient by providing that the employees The Court can consider that the illegal drug
concerned shall be subjected to "random drug menace cuts across gender, age group, and
test as contained in the company's work rules social - economic lines. And it may not be amiss
and regulations x x x for purposes of reducing to state that the sale, manufacture, or trafficking
the risk in the work place." of illegal drugs, with their ready market, would
be an investor's dream were it not for the illegal
For another, the random drug testing shall be and immoral components of any of such
undertaken under conditions calculated to activities. The drug problem has hardly abated
protect as much as possible the employee's since the martial law public execution of a
privacy and dignity. As to the mechanics of the notorious drug trafficker. The state can no
test, the law specifies that the procedure shall longer assume a laid back stance with respect
employ two testing methods, i.e., the screening to this modern - day scourge. Drug enforcement
test and the confirmatory test, doubtless to agencies perceive a mandatory random drug
ensure as much as possible the trustworthiness test to be an effective way of preventing and
of the results. But the more important deterring drug use among employees in private
consideration lies in the fact that the test shall offices, the threat of detection by random testing
be conducted by trained professionals in access being higher than other modes. The Court holds
- controlled laboratories monitored by the that the chosen method is a reasonable and
Department of Health (DOH) to safeguard enough means to lick the problem.
against results tampering and to ensure an
accurate chain of custody.33 In addition, the IRR Taking into account the foregoing factors, i.e.,
issued by the DOH provides that access to the the reduced expectation of privacy on the part of
drug results shall be on the "need to know" the employees, the compelling state concern
basis;34 that the "drug test result and the records likely to be met by the search, and the well -
shall be [kept] confidential subject to the usual defined limits set forth in the law to properly
accepted practices to protect the confidentiality guide authorities in the conduct of the random
of the test results."35 Notably, RA 9165 does not testing, we hold that the challenged drug test
oblige the employer concerned to report to the requirement is, under the limited context of the
prosecuting agencies any information or case, reasonable and, ergo, constitutional.
evidence relating to the violation of
the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Like their counterparts in the private sector,
Act received as a result of the operation of the government officials and employees also labor
drug testing. All told, therefore, the intrusion into under reasonable supervision and restrictions
the employees' privacy, under RA 9165, is imposed by the Civil Service law and other laws
accompanied by proper safeguards, particularly on public officers, all enacted to promote a high
against embarrassing leakages of test results, standard of ethics in the public service.37 And if
and is relatively minimal. RA 9165 passes the norm of reasonableness for
private employees, the more reason that it
To reiterate, RA 9165 was enacted as a should pass the test for civil servants, who, by
measure to stamp out illegal drug in the country constitutional command, are required to be
and thus protect the well - being of the citizens, accountable at all times to the people and to
especially the youth, from the deleterious effects serve them with utmost responsibility and
of dangerous drugs. The law intends to achieve efficiency.38
this through the medium, among others, of
promoting and resolutely pursuing a national Petitioner SJS' next posture that Sec. 36 of RA
drug abuse policy in the workplace via a 9165 is objectionable on the ground of undue
mandatory random drug test.36 To the Court, the delegation of power hardly commends itself for
need for drug testing to at least minimize illegal concurrence. Contrary to its position, the
drug use is substantial enough to override the provision in question is not so extensively drawn
individual's privacy interest under the premises. as to give unbridled options to schools and
employers to determine the manner of drug justification for mandatory drug testing for
testing. Sec. 36 expressly provides how drug persons accused of crimes. In the case of
testing for students of secondary and tertiary students, the constitutional viability of the
schools and officers/employees of public/private mandatory, random, and suspicionless drug
offices should be conducted. It enumerates the testing for students emanates primarily from the
persons who shall undergo drug testing. In the waiver by the students of their right to privacy
case of students, the testing shall be in when they seek entry to the school, and from
accordance with the school rules as contained their voluntarily submitting their persons to the
in the student handbook and with notice to parental authority of school authorities. In the
parents. On the part of officers/employees, the case of private and public employees, the
testing shall take into account the company's constitutional soundness of the mandatory,
work rules. In either case, the random random, and suspicionless drug testing
procedure shall be observed, meaning that the proceeds from the reasonableness of the drug
persons to be subjected to drug test shall be test policy and requirement.
picked by chance or in an unplanned way. And
in all cases, safeguards against misusing and We find the situation entirely different in the
compromising the confidentiality of the test case of persons charged before the public
results are established. prosecutor's office with criminal offenses
punishable with six (6) years and one (1) day
Lest it be overlooked, Sec. 94 of RA 9165 imprisonment. The operative concepts in the
charges the DDB to issue, in consultation with mandatory drug testing are "randomness" and
the DOH, Department of the Interior and Local "suspicionless." In the case of persons charged
Government, Department of Education, and with a crime before the prosecutor's office, a
Department of Labor and Employment, among mandatory drug testing can never be random or
other agencies, the IRR necessary to enforce suspicionless. The ideas of randomness and
the law. In net effect then, the participation of being suspicionless are antithetical to their
schools and offices in the drug testing scheme being made defendants in a criminal complaint.
shall always be subject to the IRR of RA 9165. They are not randomly picked; neither are they
It is, therefore, incorrect to say that schools and beyond suspicion. When persons suspected of
employers have unchecked discretion to committing a crime are charged, they are
determine how often, under what conditions, singled out and are impleaded against their will.
and where the drug tests shall be conducted. The persons thus charged, by the bare fact of
being haled before the prosecutor's office and
The validity of delegating legislative power is peaceably submitting themselves to drug
now a quiet area in the constitutional testing, if that be the case, do not necessarily
landscape.39 In the face of the increasing consent to the procedure, let alone waive their
complexity of the task of the government and right to privacy.40 To impose mandatory drug
the increasing inability of the legislature to cope testing on the accused is a blatant attempt to
directly with the many problems demanding its harness a medical test as a tool for criminal
attention, resort to delegation of power, or prosecution, contrary to the stated objectives of
entrusting to administrative agencies the power RA 9165. Drug testing in this case would violate
of subordinate legislation, has become a persons' right to privacy guaranteed under
imperative, as here. Sec. 2, Art. III of the Constitution. Worse still, the
accused persons are veritably forced to
Laserna Petition (Constitutionality of Sec. incriminate themselves.
36[c], [d],
[f], and [g] of RA 9165) WHEREFORE, the Court resolves
to GRANT the petition in G.R. No. 161658 and
Unlike the situation covered by Sec. 36(c) and declares Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165 and COMELEC
(d) of RA 9165, the Court finds no valid Resolution No.
6486 as UNCONSTITUTIONAL; and

to PARTIALLY GRANT the petition in G.R. Nos.
157870 and 158633 by declaring Sec.
36(c) and (d) of RA 9165 CONSTITUTIONAL,
but declaring its Sec. 36(f)
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. All concerned agencies
are, accordingly, permanently enjoined from
implementing Sec. 36(f) and (g) of RA 9165. No
costs.
SO ORDERED.
VI. CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC MORALS include bookie operations and

game fixing, numbers, bingo and
A. GAMBLING AND BETTING other forms of lotteries; cara y
cruz, pompiang and the like; 7-11
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 1602 and any game using dice; black
jack, lucky nine, poker and its
PRESCRIBING STIFFER PENALTIES ON derivatives, monte, baccarat,
ILLEGAL GAMBLING cuajao, pangguingue and other
card games; paik que, high and
WHEREAS, Philippine Gambling Laws such as low, mahjong, domino and other
Articles 195-199 of the Revised Penal Code games using plastic tiles and the
(Forms of Gambling and Betting), R.A. 3063 likes; slot machines, roulette,
(Horse racing Bookies), P.D. 449 (Cockfighting), pinball and other mechanical
P.D. 483 (Game Fixing), P.D. 510 (Slot contraptions and devices; dog
Machines) in relation to Opinion Nos. 33 and 97 racing, boat racing, car racing and
of the Ministry of Justice, P.D. 1306 (Jai-Alai other forms of races, basketball,
Bookies) and other City and Municipal boxing, volleyball, bowling,
Ordinances or gambling all over the country pingpong and other forms of
prescribe penalties which are inadequate to individual or team contests to
discourage or stamp out this pernicious include game fixing, point shaving
activities; and other machinations; banking
or percentage game, or any other
WHEREAS, there is now a need to increase game scheme, whether upon
their penalties to make them more effective in chance or skill, wherein wagers
combating this social menace which dissipate consisting of money, articles of
the energy and resources of our people; value or representative of value
are at stake or made;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E.
MARCOS, President of the Republic of the 2. Any person who shall knowingly
Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me permit any form of gambling
by the Constitution, do hereby order and decree: referred to in the preceding
subparagraph to be carried on in
Section 1. Penalties. The following penalties inhabited or uninhabited place or
are hereby imposed: in any building, vessel or other
means of transportation owned or
(a) The penalty of prison correccional in controlled by him. If the place
its medium period of a fine ranging from where gambling is carried on has
one thousand to six thousand pesos, and a reputation of a gambling place or
in case of recidivism, the penalty of that prohibited gambling is
prision mayor in its medium period or a frequently carried on therein, or
fine ranging from five thousand to ten the place is a public or
thousand pesos shall be imposed upon: government building or barangay
hall, the malfactor shall be
1. Any person other than those punished by prision correccional
referred to in the succeeding sub- in its maximum period and a fine
sections who in any manner, shall of six thousand pesos.
directly or indirectly take part in
any illegal or unauthorized (b) The penalty of prision correccional in
activities or games of cockfighting, its maximum period or a fine of six
jueteng, jai alai or horse racing to thousand pesos shall be imposed upon
the maintainer or conductor of the above be rewarded twenty percent of the cash money
gambling schemes. or articles of value confiscated or forfeited in
favor of the government.
(c) The penalty of prision mayor in its
medium period with temporary absolute Section 3. Repealing Clause. Provisions of Art.
disqualification or a fine of six thousand 195-199 of the Revised Penal Code, as
pesos shall be imposed if the maintainer, amended, Republic Act No. 3063, Presidential
conductor or banker of said gambling Decrees Numbered 483, 449, 510 and 1306,
schemes is a government official, or letters of instructions, laws, executive orders,
where such government official is the rules and regulations, city and municipal
player, promoter, referee, umpire, judge ordinances which are inconsistent with this
or coach in case of game fixing, point Decree are hereby repealed.
shaving and machination.
Section 4. Effectivity. This Decree shall take
(d) The penalty of prision correccional in effect immediately upon publication at least
its medium period or a fine ranging from once in a newspaper of general circulation.
four hundred to two thousand pesos shall
be imposed upon any person who shall, Done in the City of Manila, this 11th day of June,
knowingly and without lawful purpose in in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and
any hour of any day, possess any lottery seventy-eight.
list, paper or other matter containing
letters, figures, signs or symbols LETTER OF INSTRUCTIONS NO. 816
pertaining to or in any manner used in the
games of jueteng, jai-alai or horse racing
bookies, and similar games of lotteries
and numbers which have taken place or
TO : The Minister of National Defense
about to take place.
The minister of Local Government and
(e) The penalty of temporary absolute
Community Development
disqualifications shall be imposed upon
The Chief of Staff
any barangay official who, with
Armed Forces of the Philippines
knowledge of the existence of a gambling
The Chief Constabulary
house or place in his jurisdiction fails to
Director-General, INP
abate the same or take action in
The Chairman
connection therewith.
Task Force Anti-Gambling
(f) The penalty of prision correccional in
its maximum period or a fine ranging from
SUBJECT : To exclude certain prohibited
five hundred pesos to two thousand
games under Presidential Decree No. 1602
pesos shall be imposed upon any
security officer, security guard,
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the Presidential
watchman, private or house detective of
Decree No. 1602 to discourage and prohibit
hotels, villages, buildings, enclosures
gambling not regulated or sanctioned under
and the like which have the reputation of
existing laws;
a gambling place or where gambling
activities are being held.
WHEREAS, there is need to exclude
therefrom certain games like domino, bingo,
Section 2. Informer's reward. Any person who
poker when not played with five cards stud,
shall disclose information that will lead to the
cuajo, pangguingue and mahjong when
arrest and final conviction of the malfactor shall
exclusively intended for parlor games or for thrift since instant monetary gains from it are
home entertainment; being equated to success, thereby becoming a
widespread social menace and a source of
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. corruption.
MARCOS, President of the Philippines, do
hereby order that the games of domino, bingo, Towards this end, the State shall therefore
poker when not played with five cards stud, adopt more stringent measures to stop and
cuajo, pangguingue and mahjong, provided eradicate the existence of illegal numbers
that they are played as parlor games or for games in any part of the country.
home entertainment; and Provided Further,
That they are not played in places habitually Sec. 2. Definition of Terms. - As used in this
used for gambling and the betting is not Act, the following terms shall mean:
disguised to defeat the intent of Presidential
Decree No. 1602, are hereby exempted. a) Illegal Numbers Game. - Any form illegal
gambling activity which uses numbers or
Done in the City of Manila, this 20th day of combinations thereof as factors in giving out
February, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen jackpots.
hundred and seventy-nine.
b) Jueteng. - An illegal numbers game that
Republic Act No. 9287 April 2, 2004 involves the combination of thirty-seven (37)
numbers against thirty-seven (37) numbers
AN ACT INCREASING THE PENALTIES FOR from number one (1) to thirty seven (37) or the
ILLEGAL NUMBERS GAMES, AMENDING combination of thirty-eight (38) numbers in
CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF PRESIDENTIAL some areas, serving as a form of local lottery
DECREE NO. 1602, AND FOR OTHER where bets are placed and accepted per
PURPOSES combination, and its variants.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of c) Masiao. - An illegal numbers game where the
Representatives of the Philippines in Congress winning combination is derived from the results
assembled: of the last game of Jai Alai or the Special Llave
portion or any result thereof based on any
Section 1. Declaration of Policy. - It is the fictitious Jai Alai game consisting of ten (10)
policy of the State to promote a just and players pitted against one another, and its
dynamic social order that will ensure the variants.
prosperity and independence of the nation and
free the people from poverty through policies d) Last Two. - An illegal numbers game where
that provide adequate social services, promote the winning combination is derived from the last
full employment, a rising standard of living, and two (2) numbers of the first prize of the winning
an improved quality of life for all. It is likewise Sweepstakes ticket which comes out during the
the policy of the State that the promotion of weekly draw of the Philippine Charity
social justice shall include the commitment to Sweepstakes Office (PCSO), and its variants.
create economic opportunities based on
freedom of initiative and self-reliance. e) Bettor ("Mananaya", "Tayador" or variants
thereof). - Any person who places bets for
Hence, the State hereby condemns the himself/herself or in behalf of another person,
existence of illegal gambling activities such as or any person, other than the personnel or staff
illegal numbers games as this has become an of any illegal numbers game operation.
influential factor in an individual's disregard for
the value of dignified work, perseverance and
f) Personnel or Staff of Illegal Numbers Game person acts as a personnel or staff of an illegal
Operation. - Any person, who acts in the numbers game operation;
interest of the maintainer, manager or operator,
such as, but not limited to, an accountant, The same penalty shall likewise be imposed to
cashier, checker, guard, runner, table any person who allows his vehicle, house,
manager, usher, watcher, or any other building or land to be used in the operation of
personnel performing such similar functions in the illegal numbers games.
a building structure, vessel, vehicle, or any
other place where an illegal numbers game is c) The penalty of imprisonment from eight (8)
operated or conducted. years and one (1) day to ten (10) years, if such
person acts as a collector or agent;
g) Collector or Agent ("Cabo", "Cobrador",
"Coriador" or variants thereof). - Any person d) The penalty of imprisonment from ten (10)
who collects, solicits or produces bets in behalf years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years, if
of his/her principal for any illegal numbers such person acts as a coordinator, controller or
game who is usually in possession of gambling supervisor;
paraphernalia.
e) The penalty of imprisonment from twelve
h) Coordinator, Controller or Supervisor (12) years and one (1) day to ten (10) fourteen
("Encargado" or variants thereof). - Any person (14) years, if such person acts as a maintainer,
who exercises control and supervision over the manager or operator; and
collector or agent.
f) The penalty of imprisonment from fourteen
i) Maintainer, Manager or Operator. - Any (14) years and one (1) day to sixteen (16)
person who maintains, manages or operates years, if such person acts as a financier or
any illegal number game in a specific area from capitalist;
whom the coordinator, controller or supervisor,
and collector or agent take orders. g) The penalty of imprisonment from sixteen
(16) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years,
j) Financiers or Capitalist. - Any person who if such person acts as protector or coddler.
finances the operations of any illegal numbers
game. Sec. 4. Possession of Gambling Paraphernalia
or Materials. - The possession of any gambling
k) Protector or Coddler. - Any person who lends paraphernalia and other materials used in the
or provides protection, or receives benefits in illegal numbers game operation shall be
any manner in the operation of any illegal deemed prima facie evidence of any offense
numbers game. covered by this Act.
Sec. 3. Punishable Acts. - Any person who Sec. 5. Liability of Government Employees
participates in any illegal numbers game shall and/or Public Officials. - a) If the collector,
suffer the following penalties: agent, coordinator, controller, supervisor,
maintainer, manager, operator, financier or
a) The penalty of imprisonment from thirty (30) capitalist of any illegal numbers game is a
days to ninety (90) days, if such person acts as government employee and/or public official,
a bettor; whether elected or appointed shall suffer the
penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to
b) The penalty of imprisonment from six (6) twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from Three
years and one (1) day to eight (8) years, if such million pesos (P3,000,000.00) to Five million
pesos (P5,000,000.00) and perpetual absolute voluntarily or by virtue of a subpoena

disqualification from public office. testificandum or duces tecum, produces,
identifies, or gives testimony shall be immune
In addition to the penalty provided in the from any criminal prosecution, subject to the
immediately preceding section, the accessory compliance with the provisions of Presidential
penalty of perpetual disqualification from public Decree No. 1732, otherwise known as Decree
office shall be imposed upon any local Providing Immunity from Criminal Prosecution
government official who, having knowledge of to Government Witnesses and the pertinent
the existence of the operation of any illegal provisions of the Rules of Court.
numbers game in his/her jurisdiction, fails to
abate or to take action, or tolerates the same in Sec. 9. Prosecution, Judgment and Forfeiture
connection therewith. of Property. - Any person may be charged with
or convicted of the offenses covered by this Act
b) In the case of failure to apprehend without prejudice to the prosecution of any act
perpetrators of any illegal numbers game, any or acts penalized under the Revised Penal
law enforcer shall suffer an administrative Code or existing laws.
penalty of suspension or dismissal, as the case
may be, to be imposed by the appropriate During the pendency of the case, no property
authority. or income used or derived therefrom which
may be confiscated and forfeited shall be
Sec. 6. Liability of Parents/Guardians. - The disposed, alienated or transferred and the
penalty of imprisonment from six (6) months same shall be in custodia legis and no bond
and one (1) day to one (1) year or fine ranging shall be admitted for the release of the same.
from One hundred thousand pesos
(P100,000.00) to Four hundred thousand The trial prosecutors shall avail of provisional
pesos (P400,000.00) shall be imposed upon remedies provided for under the Revised Rules
any parent, guardian or person exercising on Criminal Procedure.
moral authority or ascendancy over a minor,
ward or incapacitated person, and not Upon conviction, all proceeds, gambling
otherwise falling under any of the foregoing paraphernalia and other instruments of the
subsections, who induces or causes such crime including any real or personal property
minor, ward or incapacitated person to commit used in any illegal numbers game operation
any of the offenses punishable in this Act. Upon shall be confiscated and forfeited in favor of the
conviction, the parent, guardian or person State. All assets and properties of the accused
exercising moral authority or ascendancy over either owned or held by him/her in his/her name
the minor, ward or incapacitated person shall or in the name of another person found to be
be deprived of his/her authority over such manifestly out of proportion to his/her lawful
person in addition to the penalty imposed. income shall be prima facie presumed to be
proceeds of the offense and shall likewise be
Sec. 7. Recidivism. - The penalty next higher in confiscated and forfeited in favor of the State.
degree as provided for under Section 3 hereof
shall be imposed upon a recidivist who Sec. 10. Witness Protection. - Any person who
commits any of the offenses punishable in this provides material information, whether
Act. testimonial or documentary, necessary for the
investigation or prosecution of individuals
Sec. 8. Immunity from Prosecution. - Any committing any of the offenses under Sections
person who serves as a witness for the 3, 4, 5 and 6 herein shall be placed under the
government or provides evidence in a criminal
case involving any violation of this Act, or who
Witness Protection Program pursuant to Sec. 15. Repealing Clause. - The provisions of
Republic Act. No. 6981. other laws, decrees, executive orders, rules
and regulations inconsistent with this Act are
Sec. 11. Informer's Reward. - Any person who, hereby repealed, amended or modified
having knowledge or information of any offense accordingly.
committed under this Act and who shall
disclose the same which may lead to the arrest Sec. 16. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect
and final conviction of the offender, may be fifteen (15) days after its publication in at least
rewarded a certain percentage of the cash two (2) national newspapers of general
money or articles of value confiscated or circulation.
forfeited in favor of the government, which shall
be determined through a policy guideline
promulgated by the Department of Justice
(DOJ) in coordination with the Department of
Interior and Local Government (DILG) and the
National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM).
The DILG, the NAPOLCOM and the DOJ shall

provide for a system of rewards and incentives
for law enforcement officers and for local
government official for the effective
implementation of this Act.
Sec. 12. Implementing Rules and Regulations.

- Within sixty (60) days from the effectivity of
this Act, the DILG, DOJ, NAPOLCOM, and
other concerned government agencies shall
jointly promulgate the implementing rules and
regulations, as may be necessary to ensure the
efficient and effective implementation of the
provisions of this Act.
Sec. 13. Separability Clause. - If for any reason

any section or provision of this Act, or any
portion thereof, or the application of such
section, provision or portion thereof to any
person, group or circumstance is declared
invalid or unconstitutional, the remaining
provisions of this Act shall not be affected by
such declaration and shall remain in force and
effect.
Sec. 14. Amendatory Clause. - The pertinent

provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1602, in
so far as they are inconsistent herewith, are
hereby expressly amended or modified
accordingly.
G.R. No. L-13678 November 12, 1918 RESOLUTION NO. 28
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, xxx xxx xxx

vs.
PRUDENCIO SALAVERIA, defendant- Whereas, this Council is vested with certain
appellant. powers by sections 2184 and 2185 of the
Administrative Code;
Jose R. Varela for appellant.
Office of the Solicitor-General Paredes for Whereas, it is the moral duty of this body to
appellee. safeguard the tranquillity and stability of the
Government and to foster the welfare and
MALCOLM, J.: prosperity of each an all of the inhabitants of
this municipality; therefore,
The municipal council of Orion, Bataan,
enacted, on February 28, 1917, an ordinance Be it resolved to enact, as it hereby is enacted,
which, among other things, prohibited the the following ordinance:
playing of panguingue on days not Sundays or
legal holidays, and penalized the violation Ordinance No. 3
thereof by a casero [housekeeper] by a fine of
not less than P10 nor more than P200, and xxx xxx xxx
by jugadores [gamblers] by a fine of not less
than P5 nor more than P200. The justice of the Third. — The games known as "Panguingue"
peace of Orion, when this ordinance went into "Manilla," "Jung-kiang," "Paris-Paris," "Poker,"
effect, was Prudencio Salaveria, now the "Tute," "Burro," and "Treinta-y-uno" shall be
defendant and appellant. Notwithstanding his allowed only on Sundays an official holidays.
official station, on the evening of March 8,
1917, not a Sunday or legal holiday, seven xxx xxx xxx
persons including the justice of the peace an
his wife were surprised by the police while The following penalties shall be imposed upon
indulging in a game of panguingue in the house those who play the above games on days other
of the justice of the peace. The chief of police than Sundays and official holidays:
took possession of the cards, the counters
(sigayes), a tray, an P2.07 in money, used in For the owner of the house: A fine of from Ten
the game. to Two hundred pesos, or subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency at the rate
These are facts fully proven by the evince and of one peso a day.
by the admissions of the accused. Convicted in
the justice of the peace court of Orion, and For the gamblers: A fine of from Five to Two
again in the Court of First Instance of Bataan, hundred pesos each or subsidiary
Salaveria appeals to this court, making five imprisonment in case of insolvency at the rate
assignments of error. The three assignments, of one peso a day.
of a technical nature, are without merit, and a
fourth, relating to the evidence, is not sustained The Philippine Legislature has granted to
by the proof. The remaining assignment of municipalities legislative powers of a dual
error, questioning the validity of the ordinance character, one class mandatory an the other
under which the accused was convicted, discretionary. Of the first class is the provision
requires serious consideration and final of the Administrative Code which makes it the
resolution. This ordinance in part reads: duty of the municipal council, conformably with
law, "to prohibit and penalize . . . gambling."
(Sec. 2188 [i], Adm. Code of 1916; sec. 2242 September 7, 1911; also Berriz, Diccionario de
[i], Adm. Code of 1917.) This is a more la Administracion, p. 35.) If, therefore, we were
restricted power than that found in the original to restrict our investigation to those portions of
Municipal Code which authorized a municipal the Administrative Code which authorize a
council to "provide against the evils of municipal council to prohibit and penalize
gambling, gambling houses, and disorderly gambling, there would exist grave doubt, to say
houses of whatsoever sort." (Act No. 82, sec. the least, of the validity of ordinance No. 3 of
39 [u].) The present municipal law, since the municipality of Orion, Bataan.
making use of the word "gambling," must be
construed with reference to the Insular Law, There remains for consideration a different
Act No. 1757, relating to the same subject. Act approach to the question.
No. 1757 in section 1 defines "gambling" as
"the paying of any game for money or any While Philippine law gives to gambling a
representative of value or valuable restricted meaning, it is to be noted that, in its
consideration or thing, the result of which game broader signification, gambling relates to play
depends wholly or chiefly upon chance or by certain rules at cards, dice, or other
hazard, or the use of any mechanical contrivance, so that one shall be the loser an
inventions or contrivance to determine by the other the winner. (20 Cyc., 878; Bouvier's
chance the loser or winner of money or of any Law Dictionary; People vs. Todd [1889], 51
representative of value or of any valuable Hun [N. Y.], 446 451; 4 N. Y. Supp., 25.) As one
consideration or thing." In the United example the Charter of the town of Ruston,
States vs. Hilario ([1913], 24 Phil., 392), the State of Louisiana, authorized it "to restrain,
Supreme Court went into the subject of the prohibit, an suppress . . . games and gambling
meaning of "gambling" in this jurisdiction, and houses and rooms . . ., and to provide for the
found that it includes those games the result of punishment of the persons engaged in the
which depend wholly or chiefly upon chance or same." Under this power the town passed an
hazard, and excludes those games the result of ordinance prohibiting "all games of chance,
which depend wholly or chiefly upon skill, with lottery, banking games, raffling, and all other
the result that sections 621 to 625 of the Revise species of gambling," indicating that there were
Ordinances of the city of Manila (734-738 of the other species of gambling in addition to games
Revised Ordinances of 1917) were found to of chance. (See Town of Ruston vs. Perkins
prohibit only games of chance or hazard. [1905], 114 La., 851.) The common law notion
of gambling, which only made it an indictable
The ordinance of Orion, Bataan, merely offense when the play was attended by such
prohibits the playing of panguingue on certain circumstances as would in themselves amount
days, without describing it. Further, although to a riot or a nuisance or to an actual breach of
this court has considered the method by which the peace, has given way to statutes and
many other games are played, it has never as ordinances designed to restrain, suppress, or
yet authoritatively decided whether control gambling.
panguingue was a game of skill or hazard. Nor
was any evidence on this point introduced in Authority for the State or a municipality to take
the present case. However, a reading of the action to control gambling in this larger sense
decision of the trial court and of official opinions can be found in an analysis of what is calle the
of two Attorneys-General, of which we can take police power.
judicial cognizance, warrants the deduction
that panguingue is not a game of chance or Any attempt to define the police power with
hazard and is not prohibited by Act No. 1757. circumstantial precision would savor of
(See Opinions of the Attorney-General of July pedantry. The United States Supreme Court
11, 1904; July 25, 1904; October 10, 1905; and tritely describes it as "the most essential of all
powers, at times the most insistent, an always The Philippine Legislature, as before intimated,
one of least limitable of the powers of delegated to municipalities certain legislative
government." (District of Columbia vs. Brooks powers are named specifically. But in addition,
[1909], 214 U.S., 138.) The police power is and preceding both the specific powers of a
based on the maxim "salus populi est suprema mandatory and discretionary character, is the
lex" — the welfare of the people is the first law. general power of a municipal council to enact
The United States Supreme Court has said that ordinances and make regulations. It is this
it extends "to the protection of the lives, health grant that the preamble of the ordinance of
and property of the citizens, and to Orion assigns as authority for its enactment.
the preservation of good order and the public Said section 2184 of the Administrative Code
morals." (Beer Co. vs. Massachusetts [1878] , of 1916 (sec. 2238, Adm. Code of 1917) reads:
97 U.S., 25; Barbier vs. Connolly [1885], 113
U.S., 27.) The Supreme Court of these Islands The municipal council shall enact such
has said that it extends "the police power of the ordinances and make such regulations, not
state includes not only the public health safety, repugnant to law, as may be necessary to carry
but also the public welfare, protection against into effect and discharge the powers an duties
impositions, and generally the public's best conferred upon it by law an such as shall seem
interest." (U.S. vs. Pompeya [1915], 31 Phil., necessary and proper to provide for the health
245.) Recent judicial decisions incline to give a and safety, promote the prosperity, improve the
more extensive scope to the police power that morals, peace, good order, comfort, and
the older cases. The public welfare is rightfully convenience of the municipality and the
made the basis of construction. inhabitants thereof, and for the protection of
property therein.
Not only does the State effectuate its purposes
through the exercise of the police power but the This section, known as the general welfare
municipality does also. Like the State, the clause, delegates in statutory form the police
police power of a municipal corporation power to a municipality. As above stated, this
extends to all matters affecting the peace, clause has been given wide application by
order, health, morals, convenience, comfort, municipal authorities and has in its relation to
and safety of its citizens — the security of social the particular circumstances of the case been
order — the best and highest interests of the liberally construed by the courts. Such, it is well
municipality. (Case vs. Board of Health of to recall, is the progressive view of Philippine
Manila and Heiser [1913], 24 Phil., 250.) The jurisprudence.
best considered decisions have tended to
broaden the scope of action of the municipality The general welfare clause has two branches.
in dealing with police offenses. Within the One branch attaches itself to the main trunk of
general police powers of a municipal municipal authority, and relates to such
corporation is the suppression of gambling. ordinances and regulations as may be
Ordinances aimed in a reasonable way at the necessary to carry into effect and discharge the
accomplishment of this purpose are powers and duties conferred upon the
undoubtedly valid. (See U.S. vs. Pacis [1915], municipal council by law. With this class we are
31 Phil., 524; 39 L. R. A., 523, Note; Cooley's not here directly concerned. The second
Constitutional Limitations, 6th edition, pp. 138, branch of the clause is much more independent
226, 742; Greenville vs.Kemmis [1900], 58 S. of the specific functions of the council which are
C., 427 [holding that under the general welfare enumerated by law. It authorizes such
clause a city may pass an ordinance prohibiting ordinances "as shall seem necessary and
gambling in any private house].) proper to provide for the health and safety,
promote the prosperity, improve the morals,
peace, good order, comfort, and convenience
of the municipality and the inhabitants thereof, necessitate action. The local legislative body,
and for the protection of property therein." by enacting the ordinance, has in effect given
notice that the regulations are essential to the
It is a general rule that ordinances passed by well being of the people. Who is in a better
virtue of the implied power found in the general position to say whether the playing
powers and purposes of the corporation, and of panguingue is deleterious to social order and
not inconsistent with the laws or policy of the the public interest in a certain municipality —
State. The ordinance of the municipality of the municipal council, or the courts? The
Orion does not seem in itself to be pernicious, answer is self-evident. The Judiciary should not
or unreasonable or discriminatory. Its purposes lightly set aside legislative action when there is
evidently are to improve the morals and not a clear invasion of personal or property
stimulate the industry of the people. A person rights under the guise of police regulation. (See
is to be compelled to refrain from private acts U.S. vs. Joson [1913], 26 Phil., 1.)
injurious both to himself an his neighbors.
These objects, to be attained by limiting the President McKinley's Instructions to the
pastime to definite days, do not infringe any law Commission still remain undisturbed by
of the general government. subsequent Acts of Congress dealing with
Philippine affairs and yet constitute a portion of
The constitutional provision that no person our constitutional law, as to the inviolable rule
shall be deprived of liberty without due process that "municipal governments . . . shall be
of law is not violated by this ordinance. Liberty afforded the opportunity to manage their own
of action by the individual is not unduly affairs to the fullest extent of which they are
circumscribed; that is, it is not unduly capable." Again the same organic law says, "In
circumscribed if we have in mind the correct the distribution of powers among the
notion of this "the greatest of all rights." That governments organized by the Commission,
gravest of sociological questions — How far, the presumption is always to be in favor of the
consistently with freedom, may the liberties of smaller subdivision, so that all the powers
the individual member of society be which can properly be exercised by the
subordinated to the will of the Government? — municipal government shall be vested in that
has been debated for centuries, in vain, if we government . . . ." Let us never forget these
can not now discount the time worn objection principles so highly protective of local self-
to any and all interference with private rights in government.
order to effectuate the public purpose. (See
Jacobson vs. Massachusetts [1905], 197 U. S., The judiciary can very well take notice of the
11; State vs. Kreutzberg [1902], 58 L. R. A., fact that municipalities are accustomed to
748.) Almost countless are the governmental enacting ordinances aimed at the regulation of
restrictions on the citizen. gambling. The executive authorities an the
Attorney-General have usually upheld the
The presumption is all favor of validity. The validity of such ordinances, especially those
inhabitants of a municipality are in themselves intended to restrict the playing of panguingue.
miniature states. The action of the elected (Opinions of the Attorney-General, supra;
representatives of the people cannot be lightly Opinion of the Executive Secretary, July 6,
set aside. The councilors must, in the very 1909; Indorsement of the Governor-General,
nature of things, be familiar with the necessities July 21, 1904.) This general municipal practice,
of their particular municipality an with all the indicative of a social cancer to be eradicated,
facts and circumstances which surround the should not be discouraged by strict judicial
subject, and necessities of their particular construction.
municipality and with all the facts and
circumstances which surround the subject, and
More important still, the courts cannot but intention is to improve the public morals and
realize that gambling, in its larger sense as well promote the prosperity of their people, their
as in its restricted sense, is an act beyond the action should be upheld by the courts.
pale of good morals, which, for the welfare of Ordinance No. 3 of Orion, Bataan, is found to
the Filipino people, should be exterminated. be valid.
The suppression of the evil does not interfere
with any of the inherent rights of citizenship. The culprit in this case is himself a member of
The pernicious practice is rightfully regarded as the Judiciary. Instead of enforcing the law, he
the offspring of idleness and the prolific parent has scorned it. His example to the people of
of vice and immorality, demoralizing in its Orion has been pernicious in its influence. If
association and tendencies, detrimental to the gambling is to be suppressed, not only the
best interests of society, and encouraging weak and ignorant must be punished, but those
wastefulness, thriftlessness, and a belief that a with full knowledge of the law and the
livelihood may be earned by other means than consequences of violation. We would
honest industry. To be condemned in itself, it accordingly suggest to Courts of First Instance
has the further effect of causing poverty, that in all cases arising under the Gambling
dishonesty, fraud, and deceit. Many a man has Law or ordinances, except for unusual
neglected his business and mortgaged his circumstances, a prison sentence should be
integrity to follow the fickle Goddess of the imposed, if permitted by the law or ordinance.
cards. Many a woman has wasted her hours We further suggest that, where the defendant
and squandered her substance at the gambling has been found guilty and is a man of station,
board while home and children were forgotten. he be given the maximum penalty.lawphil.net
It is highly proper that this pastime should be
subject to the control of restraints imposed by Applying the foregoing in this instance, it
the ordinances of local governments peculiarly results that the defendant and appellant must
afflicted by the evil. (See In re Voss [1903], 11 be found guilty of a violation of ordinance No. 3
N. D., 540; Ex parte Tuttle [1891], 91, Cal., 589; of the municipality of Orion, Bataan; and, in
Greenwood vs. State [1873], 6 Baxt., 567; 32 accordance therewith, shall be sentenced to
Am. Rep., 539; 12 R. C. L., 709-715.) the maximum penalty of the payment of a fine
of P200, or to subsidiary imprisonment in case
For the suppression of such an evil, coordinate of insolvency, with the costs of all three
and harmonious action must concur between instances against him. So ordered.
the three departments of Government. A law or
ordinance enacted by the legislative body must Arellano, C.J., Torres, Araullo and Avanceña,
exist. Such an ordinance is before us. Vigorous JJ., concur.
executive enforcement must take place to
make the law or ordinance a reality. Such Separate Opinions
activity by the police has brought this case to
the courts. And finally the Judiciary, having full JOHNSON, J., concurring:
respect for the legislative action of the
municipal council and for the prosecution by I concur upon the ground that the ordinance in
the executive officials, must, by judicial question is fully authorized under the "general
construction, equally as progressive and welfare" provisions of the Municipal Code.
constructive, give effect to the action of the
other two powers. Wherefore, STREET, J., concurring:
although panguingue is not entirely a game of
chance, since it is a proper subject for I agree in the conclusion that the ordinance
regulation by municipal authorities acting under passed by the municipality of Orion prohibiting
their delegated police power, whose laudable the playing of panguingue on secular days is
valid and am of the opinion that the authority to prosperity in the community; and the ordinance
pass such an ordinance is to be found was doubtless intended to discourage the
exclusively in section 2184 of the playing of games which involve a frivolous and
Administrative Code (1916), which gives a idle waste of time, rather than directly to
general authority for the enactment of suppress gambling. But even if the council had
ordinances which seem proper to improve the suppose that the games which it proposed to
morals and good order of the community. As regulate are calculated to foment the gambling
the game of panguingue is admittedly not a instinct and should be suppressed for that
game of chance or hazard played for money, it reason, the ordinance in question could not
is not within the prohibitions of Act No. 1757; an possibly have been rendered invalid by that
I think the case should be determined without fact.
reference to the legislation against gambling
and without reference t the circumstance that FISHER, J., dissenting:
under subsection (i) of section 2188 of the
same Code the Legislature has made it The importance of suppressing gambling,
mandatory upon municipal councils to prohibit properly emphasized in the majority opinion,
and penalize gambling. cannot warrant a conviction where gambling is
not involved. The zeal to remedy an evil should
The legislature has clearly authorized the not induce the graver evil of obliterating legal
municipal council to use its discretion as to the landmarks.
measures which it esteems desirable to
promote morals an good order; and I know of Gambling is the playing, for money or its
no rule of law which would justify any court in equivalent, of any game of which the result
overruling that discretion in such a matter as is depends "wholly or chiefly upon chance or
now before us. Certainly I would be sorry to see hazard, . . . ." (Act No. 1757).
this court adopt a paternalistic attitude of
captious criticism and correction tending to The defendant herein is accused of playing
embarrass the free exercise of the legislative panguingue, which is avowedly not a game of
discretion vested by law in the municipal chance or hazard within this definition. It is not
councils. Those bodies are undoubtedly alleged in the information that the playing was
destined to make mistakes in the exercise of for money or any other thing of value. The fact
the powers conferred on them, but there is no that some money was found on the table when
better school than that of experience in which the accused was arrested is immaterial in this
their members may discover what is most likely case. The ordinance under which the
to promote the welfare of the community and conviction was had does not make playing the
the interests of their constituents. prohibited games for money an ingredient of
the offense, and the decision of the majority
As already suggested, I think that the Gambling proceeds upon the theory that the result would
Law (Act No. 1757) and the provisions of the have been the same had no money been
Municipal Code relative to the suppression of staked upon the game.
gambling, strictly speaking, have nothing to do
with the case; and the circumstance that those To play a game of skill without risking anything
measures are upon the statute book cannot upon the outcome is not gambling, and the
serve in the slightest degree to limit the powers prohibition of harmless amusements cannot be
of a municipal council in legislating upon a justified by the authority to prohibit gambling.
matter not implicated with gambling. From the
preamble to the ordinance it may be seen that In recognition of the fact that the ordinance
the council had in view the promotion of the upon which is based this prosecution goes
general well-being and the advancement of beyond the terms of the statutory authority, it is
sought to find power to pass the same under Unfortunately for that theory it appears that the
the general welfare clause (section 2238, ordinance expressly permits these "immoral"
Administrative Code of 1917). But the diversions on Sundays and official holidays. I
ordinance which imposes a fine and am unable to see how one's morals are to be
imprisonment upon a man and wife who play a improved by permitting him to play panguingue,
game of cards together as mere pastime, in poker or burro all day Sunday, and then
their own home, without risking a cent upon the sending him to jail for engaging in the same
outcome, is beyond the protection of such amusement Monday evening. So far as the
general provision for two reasons. In the first "stimulation of . . . industry" is concerned, that
place, it is unreasonably subversive of the argument might have had some weight if the
liberty of the citizen an unnecessary. In the prohibition of these amusements had been
second place, the Legislature of the Islands limited to working hours. But such is not the
has spoken in well defined terms on the subject case. The inhabitants of Orion may play poker
of gambling, and its pronouncement on the — without a wager — to their heart's content on
subject fills the field and precludes the Sunday, but to do it Saturday evening, after the
possibility of stretching the authority delegated work of the week is over, is prohibited — their
to municipalities into the right to repeal, modify, morals are to be "improved" and their industry
or supplement existing legislation. "stimulated" until midnight. After that they may
yield to their depraved instincts until midnight of
The subject of gambling has merited the Sunday, without let or hindrance. I submit that
attention of our Legislature and Act No. 1757 it is obvious that the ordinance in question
very clearly defines the intention and will of that was intended to prevent gambling, but is not
body in the premises. Its limitation of the warranted by the delegated authority of
prohibition is its refusal to prohibit games of skill municipal councils over this subject, because it
and games in which no value is at stake, and is is so drawn as to include harmless
the exact equivalent of a pronouncement that amusements not within the legislative definition
non-gambling pastimes shall not be prohibited. of gambling. By limiting the definition and
prohibition of gambling to the playing
When the legislature authorized municipalities for money of games of hazard, the Legislature
to "penalize . . . . gambling" it was aiming at the by implication permitted the playing of all other
vice of risking money upon the hazard of a games not within the prohibition. Is the "general
game of chance. The Legislature has not welfare" clause of grant of power to municipal
prohibited the playing of card games — in itself corporation to be so construed as to make the
an innocent pastime — but the playing for express delegation of power redundant and
money of games of hazard. When it delegated useless? If under the general welfare clause
like power to municipalities it had a like object the playing of whist or chess in one's own
in view and not other. house, not for money, but merely for
amusement, may be prohibited under the
Equally untenable, to my mind, is the attempt general welfare clause, certainly the power "to
to justify the statute under the "general welfare" penalize and prohibit . . . gambling" must have
clause. The prohibition by ordinance of the been included in that clause. If so, the special
playing of certain card games as an grant relating to gambling is merely redundant.
amusement, without stake or wager, cannot be
said to promote the health, safety, morals, I submit that when a special power to enact
peace, good order, comfort or convenience of ordinances is granted to a municipal council
the inhabitants of a municipality. The majority upon a particular subject, the power as to that
opinion contends that the purpose of the matter is to be measured by the express grant,
enactment was to "improve the morals and without enlargement by the interpretation of the
stimulate the industry of the people." general "welfare clause." The express grant of
power to regulate public dance halls (section (Marietta vs. Fearing, 4 Ohio, 427) in which
2243 [k], Administrative Code of 1917) is not be incorporated towns were, by statute, prohibited
expanded under the general "welfare clause" from subjecting stray animals owned by
so as to authorize the prohibition and persons not residents of such town to their
penalizing of dancing in private houses. The corporation ordinances. It was held that an
express grant of power to establish and ordinance operating, not on the animals but on
maintain streets cannot be expanded, under the non-resident owner, in the shape of a
the general welfare clause, this court has held, penalty, violated the spirit of the statute, and
so as to authorize an ordinance to compel was void. So, in a later case in the same State,
citizen to clean the streets. (U.S. vs. Gaspay, it was shown that the general policy of the State
33 Phil. Rep., 96.) was to allow animals to run at large; and it was
ruled that a municipal corporation with power to
I think the law on this subject is correctly pass "all by-laws deemed necessary for the
expressed in Judge Dillon's authoritative work well-regulation, health, cleanliness & c.," of the
on Municipal Corporations as follows: borough, and with power to "abate nuisances,"
had no authority to pass a by-law restraining
When there are both special and general cattle from running at large, such a by-law
provisions, the power to pass by-laws under being in contravention of the general law of the
the special or express grant can only be State. (Collins vs. Hatch, 18 Ohio, 523.)
exercised in the cases and to the extent, as
respects those matters, allowed by the charter The public legislative policy is to permit the
or incorporating act; and the power to pass by- playing of card games as an amusement,
laws under the general clause does not enlarge without wagers upon the outcome. That is
or annul the power conferred by the special shown by the language of Act No. 1757, which,
provisions in relation to their various subject by limiting the prohibition of gambling to games
matters, but gives authority to pass by-laws, of chance or hazard played for money, by
reasonable in their character, upon all other implication permits the playing of games not
matters within the scope of their municipal prohibited, and by the fact that the Tariff Act in
authority, and not repugnant to the Constitution force (section 3) by prohibiting the importation
and general laws of the State. of marked cards impliedly authorizes the
importation of others.
But if we disregard entirely the delegated
power relating to the prohibition of gambling Panguingue playing may be so harmful to the
and consider the matter from the standpoint of people of this country that the playing of it at
the general welfare clause alone, it seems any time, at any place, with or without the
equally clear to me that the ordinance in wagering of money, should be prohibited. If that
question is void as being contrary to the public is so the Legislature should prohibit it. Some
legislative policy, as established by the people regard dancing and billiards as equally
Philippine Legislature. In Dillon on Municipal harmful. If such people happen to control a
Corporations (fifth edition, paragraph 601) it is given municipal council we may see
said: respectable citizens in jail for the offense of
dancing in their own homes, for playing casino
. . . A municipal corporation . . . cannot, in virtue or billiards, or ping-pong, or for engaging in any
of its incidental power to pass-by-laws, or other amusement which, while not prohibited
under any general grant of that authority, adopt by any general law, may be prohibited in any
by-laws which infringe the spirit or are municipality under this omnibus general
repugnant to the policy of the State as declared welfare clause.
in its general legislation. This principle is well
exemplified by a case in Ohio
G.R. No. 111097 July 20, 1994 TO ANY ESTABLISHMENT FOR THE USING
AND ALLOWING TO BE USED ITS
MAYOR PABLO P. MAGTAJAS & THE CITY PREMISES OR PORTION THEREOF FOR
OF CAGAYAN DE ORO, petitioners, THE OPERATION OF CASINO.
vs.
PRYCE PROPERTIES CORPORATION, INC. BE IT ORDAINED by the Sangguniang
& PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING Panlungsod of the City of Cagayan de Oro, in
CORPORATION, respondents. session assembled that:
Aquilino G. Pimentel, Jr. and Associates for Sec. 1. — That pursuant to the policy of the city
petitioners. banning the operation of casino within its
territorial jurisdiction, no business permit shall
R.R. Torralba & Associates for private be issued to any person, partnership or
respondent. corporation for the operation of casino within
the city limits.
Sec. 2. — That it shall be a violation of existing

CRUZ, J.: business permit by any persons, partnership or
corporation to use its business establishment
There was instant opposition when PAGCOR or portion thereof, or allow the use thereof by
announced the opening of a casino in Cagayan others for casino operation and other gambling
de Oro City. Civic organizations angrily activities.
denounced the project. The religious elements
echoed the objection and so did the women's Sec. 3. — PENALTIES. — Any violation of such
groups and the youth. Demonstrations were led existing business permit as defined in the
by the mayor and the city legislators. The preceding section shall suffer the following
media trumpeted the protest, describing the penalties, to wit:
casino as an affront to the welfare of the city.
a) Suspension of the business permit for sixty
The trouble arose when in 1992, flush with its (60) days for the first offense and a fine of
tremendous success in several cities, P1,000.00/day
PAGCOR decided to expand its operations to
Cagayan de Oro City. To this end, it leased a b) Suspension of the business permit for Six (6)
portion of a building belonging to Pryce months for the second offense, and a fine of
Properties Corporation, Inc., one of the herein P3,000.00/day
private respondents, renovated and equipped
the same, and prepared to inaugurate its c) Permanent revocation of the business permit
casino there during the Christmas season. and imprisonment of One (1) year, for the third
and subsequent offenses.
The reaction of the Sangguniang Panlungsod
of Cagayan de Oro City was swift and hostile. Sec. 4. — This Ordinance shall take effect ten
On December 7, 1992, it enacted Ordinance (10) days from publication thereof.
No. 3353 reading as follows:
Nor was this all. On January 4, 1993, it adopted
ORDINANCE NO. 3353 a sterner Ordinance No. 3375-93 reading as
follows:
AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING THE
ISSUANCE OF BUSINESS PERMIT AND ORDINANCE NO. 3375-93
CANCELLING EXISTING BUSINESS PERMIT
AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING THE conduct, maintenance of gambling CASINO in

OPERATION OF CASINO AND PROVIDING the City and closure thereof;
PENALTY FOR VIOLATION THEREFOR.
b) Imprisonment of not less than six (6) months
WHEREAS, the City Council established a nor more than one (1) year or a fine in the
policy as early as 1990 against CASINO under amount of P5,000.00 or both at the discretion
its Resolution No. 2295; of the court against the manager, supervisor,
and/or any person responsible in the
WHEREAS, on October 14, 1992, the City establishment, conduct and maintenance of
Council passed another Resolution No. 2673, gambling CASINO.
reiterating its policy against the establishment
of CASINO; Sec. 3. — This Ordinance shall take effect ten
(10) days after its publication in a local
WHEREAS, subsequently, thereafter, it newspaper of general circulation.
likewise passed Ordinance No. 3353,
prohibiting the issuance of Business Permit Pryce assailed the ordinances before the Court
and to cancel existing Business Permit to any of Appeals, where it was joined by PAGCOR as
establishment for the using and allowing to be intervenor and supplemental petitioner. Their
used its premises or portion thereof for the challenge succeeded. On March 31, 1993, the
operation of CASINO; Court of Appeals declared the ordinances
invalid and issued the writ prayed for to prohibit
WHEREAS, under Art. 3, section 458, No. (4), their enforcement. 1 Reconsideration of this
sub paragraph VI of the Local Government decision was denied on July 13, 1993. 2
Code of 1991 (Rep. Act 7160) and under Art.
99, No. (4), Paragraph VI of the implementing Cagayan de Oro City and its mayor are now
rules of the Local Government Code, the City before us in this petition for review under Rule
Council as the Legislative Body shall enact 45 of the Rules of Court. 3 They aver that the
measure to suppress any activity inimical to respondent Court of Appeals erred in holding
public morals and general welfare of the people that:
and/or regulate or prohibit such activity
pertaining to amusement or entertainment in 1. Under existing laws, the Sangguniang
order to protect social and moral welfare of the Panlungsod of the City of Cagayan de Oro
community; does not have the power and authority to
prohibit the establishment and operation of a
NOW THEREFORE, PAGCOR gambling casino within the City's
territorial limits.
BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council in
session duly assembled that: 2. The phrase "gambling and other prohibited
games of chance" found in Sec. 458, par. (a),
Sec. 1. — The operation of gambling CASINO sub-par. (1) — (v) of R.A. 7160 could only
in the City of Cagayan de Oro is hereby mean "illegal gambling."
prohibited.
3. The questioned Ordinances in effect annul
Sec. 2. — Any violation of this Ordinance shall P.D. 1869 and are therefore invalid on that
be subject to the following penalties: point.
a) Administrative fine of P5,000.00 shall be 4. The questioned Ordinances are

imposed against the proprietor, partnership or discriminatory to casino and partial to
corporation undertaking the operation,
cockfighting and are therefore invalid on that and self-reliant scientific and technological
point. capabilities, improve public morals, enhance
economic prosperity and social justice,
5. The questioned Ordinances are not promote full employment among their
reasonable, not consonant with the general residents, maintain peace and order, and
powers and purposes of the instrumentality preserve the comfort and convenience of their
concerned and inconsistent with the laws or inhabitants.
policy of the State.
In addition, Section 458 of the said Code
6. It had no option but to follow the ruling in the specifically declares that:
case of Basco, et al. v. PAGCOR, G.R. No.
91649, May 14, 1991, 197 SCRA 53 in Sec. 458. — Powers, Duties, Functions and
disposing of the issues presented in this Compensation. — (a) The Sangguniang
present case. Panlungsod, as the legislative body of the city,
shall enact ordinances, approve resolutions
PAGCOR is a corporation created directly by and appropriate funds for the general welfare
P.D. 1869 to help centralize and regulate all of the city and its inhabitants pursuant to
games of chance, including casinos on land Section 16 of this Code and in the proper
and sea within the territorial jurisdiction of the exercise of the corporate powers of the city as
Philippines. In Basco v. Philippine provided for under Section 22 of this Code, and
Amusements and Gaming Corporation, 4 this shall:
Court sustained the constitutionality of the
decree and even cited the benefits of the entity (1) Approve ordinances and pass resolutions
to the national economy as the third highest necessary for an efficient and effective city
revenue-earner in the government, next only to government, and in this connection, shall:
the BIR and the Bureau of Customs.
xxx xxx xxx
Cagayan de Oro City, like other local political
subdivisions, is empowered to enact (v) Enact ordinances intended to prevent,
ordinances for the purposes indicated in the suppress and impose appropriate penalties for
Local Government Code. It is expressly vested habitual drunkenness in public places,
with the police power under what is known as vagrancy, mendicancy, prostitution,
the General Welfare Clause now embodied in establishment and maintenance of houses of ill
Section 16 as follows: repute, gamblingand other prohibited games of
chance, fraudulent devices and ways to obtain
Sec. 16. — General Welfare. — Every local money or property, drug addiction,
government unit shall exercise the powers maintenance of drug dens, drug pushing,
expressly granted, those necessarily implied juvenile delinquency, the printing, distribution
therefrom, as well as powers necessary, or exhibition of obscene or pornographic
appropriate, or incidental for its efficient and materials or publications, and such other
effective governance, and those which are activities inimical to the welfare and morals of
essential to the promotion of the general the inhabitants of the city;
welfare. Within their respective territorial
jurisdictions, local government units shall This section also authorizes the local
ensure and support, among other things, the government units to regulate properties and
preservation and enrichment of culture, businesses within their territorial limits in the
promote health and safety, enhance the right of interest of the general welfare. 5
the people to a balanced ecology, encourage
and support the development of appropriate
The petitioners argue that by virtue of these The adoption of the Local Government Code, it
provisions, the Sangguniang Panlungsod may is pointed out, had the effect of modifying the
prohibit the operation of casinos because they charter of the PAGCOR. The Code is not only
involve games of chance, which are a later enactment than P.D. 1869 and so is
detrimental to the people. Gambling is not deemed to prevail in case of inconsistencies
allowed by general law and even by the between them. More than this, the powers of
Constitution itself. The legislative power the PAGCOR under the decree are expressly
conferred upon local government units may be discontinued by the Code insofar as they do not
exercised over all kinds of gambling and not conform to its philosophy and provisions,
only over "illegal gambling" as the respondents pursuant to Par. (f) of its repealing clause
erroneously argue. Even if the operation of reading as follows:
casinos may have been permitted under P.D.
1869, the government of Cagayan de Oro City (f) All general and special laws, acts, city
has the authority to prohibit them within its charters, decrees, executive orders,
territory pursuant to the authority entrusted to it proclamations and administrative regulations,
by the Local Government Code. or part or parts thereof which are inconsistent
with any of the provisions of this Code are
It is submitted that this interpretation is hereby repealed or modified accordingly.
consonant with the policy of local autonomy as
mandated in Article II, Section 25, and Article X It is also maintained that assuming there is
of the Constitution, as well as various other doubt regarding the effect of the Local
provisions therein seeking to strengthen the Government Code on P.D. 1869, the doubt
character of the nation. In giving the local must be resolved in favor of the petitioners, in
government units the power to prevent or accordance with the direction in the Code
suppress gambling and other social problems, calling for its liberal interpretation in favor of the
the Local Government Code has recognized local government units. Section 5 of the Code
the competence of such communities to specifically provides:
determine and adopt the measures best
expected to promote the general welfare of Sec. 5. Rules of Interpretation. — In the
their inhabitants in line with the policies of the interpretation of the provisions of this Code, the
State. following rules shall apply:
The petitioners also stress that when the Code (a) Any provision on a power of a local
expressly authorized the local government government unit shall be liberally interpreted in
units to prevent and suppress gambling and its favor, and in case of doubt, any question
other prohibited games of chance, like craps, thereon shall be resolved in favor of devolution
baccarat, blackjack and roulette, it of powers and of the lower local government
meant allforms of gambling without unit. Any fair and reasonable doubt as to the
distinction. Ubi lex non distinguit, nec nos existence of the power shall be interpreted in
distinguere debemos. 6 Otherwise, it would favor of the local government unit concerned;
have expressly excluded from the scope of
their power casinos and other forms of xxx xxx xxx
gambling authorized by special law, as it could
have easily done. The fact that it did not do so (c) The general welfare provisions in this Code
simply means that the local government units shall be liberally interpreted to give more
are permitted to prohibit all kinds of gambling powers to local government units in
within their territories, including the operation of accelerating economic development and
casinos.
upgrading the quality of life for the people in the departments, to which the function belongs in
community; . . . (Emphasis supplied.) our scheme of government. That function is
exclusive. Whichever way these branches
Finally, the petitioners also attack gambling as decide, they are answerable only to their own
intrinsically harmful and cite various provisions conscience and the constituents who will
of the Constitution and several decisions of this ultimately judge their acts, and not to the courts
Court expressive of the general and official of justice.
disapprobation of the vice. They invoke the
State policies on the family and the proper The only question we can and shall resolve in
upbringing of the youth and, as might be this petition is the validity of Ordinance No.
expected, call attention to the old case of U.S. 3355 and Ordinance No. 3375-93 as enacted
v. Salaveria,7 which sustained a municipal by the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cagayan
ordinance prohibiting the playing de Oro City. And we shall do so only by the
of panguingue. The petitioners decry the criteria laid down by law and not by our own
immorality of gambling. They also impugn the convictions on the propriety of gambling.
wisdom of P.D. 1869 (which they describe as
"a martial law instrument") in creating The tests of a valid ordinance are well
PAGCOR and authorizing it to operate casinos established. A long line of decisions 9 has held
"on land and sea within the territorial that to be valid, an ordinance must conform to
jurisdiction of the Philippines." the following substantive requirements:
This is the opportune time to stress an 1) It must not contravene the constitution or any
important point. statute.
The morality of gambling is not a justiciable 2) It must not be unfair or oppressive.

issue. Gambling is not illegal per se. While it is
generally considered inimical to the interests of 3) It must not be partial or discriminatory.
the people, there is nothing in the Constitution
categorically proscribing or penalizing 4) It must not prohibit but may regulate trade.
gambling or, for that matter, even mentioning it
at all. It is left to Congress to deal with the 5) It must be general and consistent with public
activity as it sees fit. In the exercise of its own policy.
discretion, the legislature may prohibit
gambling altogether or allow it without limitation 6) It must not be unreasonable.
or it may prohibit some forms of gambling and
allow others for whatever reasons it may We begin by observing that under Sec. 458 of
consider sufficient. Thus, it has the Local Government Code, local government
prohibited jueteng and monte but permits units are authorized to prevent or suppress,
lotteries, cockfighting and horse-racing. In among others, "gambling and other prohibited
making such choices, Congress has consulted games of chance." Obviously, this provision
its own wisdom, which this Court has no excludes games of chance which are not
authority to review, much less reverse. Well prohibited but are in fact permitted by law. The
has it been said that courts do not sit to resolve petitioners are less than accurate in claiming
the merits of conflicting theories. 8 That is the that the Code could have excluded such games
prerogative of the political departments. It is of chance but did not. In fact it does. The
settled that questions regarding the wisdom, language of the section is clear and
morality, or practicibility of statutes are not unmistakable. Under the rule of noscitur a
addressed to the judiciary but may be resolved sociis, a word or phrase should be interpreted
only by the legislative and executive in relation to, or given the same meaning of,
words with which it is associated. Accordingly, word "shall" as used therein is to be given its
we conclude that since the word "gambling" is accepted meaning. Local government units
associated with "and other prohibited games of have now no choice but to prevent and
chance," the word should be read as referring suppress gambling, which in the petitioners'
to only illegal gambling which, like view includes both legal and illegal gambling.
the other prohibited games of chance, must be Under this construction, PAGCOR will have no
prevented or suppressed. more games of chance to regulate or centralize
as they must all be prohibited by the local
We could stop here as this interpretation government units pursuant to the mandatory
should settle the problem quite conclusively. duty imposed upon them by the Code. In this
But we will not. The vigorous efforts of the situation, PAGCOR cannot continue to exist
petitioners on behalf of the inhabitants of except only as a toothless tiger or a white
Cagayan de Oro City, and the earnestness of elephant and will no longer be able to exercise
their advocacy, deserve more than short shrift its powers as a prime source of government
from this Court. revenue through the operation of casinos.
The apparent flaw in the ordinances in question It is noteworthy that the petitioners have cited
is that they contravene P.D. 1869 and the only Par. (f) of the repealing clause,
public policy embodied therein insofar as they conveniently discarding the rest of the
prevent PAGCOR from exercising the power provision which painstakingly mentions the
conferred on it to operate a casino in Cagayan specific laws or the parts thereof which are
de Oro City. The petitioners have an ingenious repealed (or modified) by the Code.
answer to this misgiving. They deny that it is Significantly, P.D. 1869 is not one of them. A
the ordinances that have changed P.D. 1869 reading of the entire repealing clause, which is
for an ordinance admittedly cannot prevail reproduced below, will disclose the omission:
against a statute. Their theory is that the
change has been made by the Local Sec. 534. Repealing Clause. — (a) Batas
Government Code itself, which was also Pambansa Blg. 337, otherwise known as the
enacted by the national lawmaking authority. In "Local Government Code," Executive Order
their view, the decree has been, not really No. 112 (1987), and Executive Order No. 319
repealed by the Code, but merely "modified pro (1988) are hereby repealed.
tanto" in the sense that PAGCOR cannot now
operate a casino over the objection of the local (b) Presidential Decree Nos. 684, 1191, 1508
government unit concerned. This modification and such other decrees, orders, instructions,
of P.D. 1869 by the Local Government Code is memoranda and issuances related to or
permissible because one law can change or concerning the barangay are hereby repealed.
repeal another law.
(c) The provisions of Sections 2, 3, and 4 of
It seems to us that the petitioners are playing Republic Act No. 1939 regarding hospital fund;
with words. While insisting that the decree has Section 3, a (3) and b (2) of Republic Act. No.
only been "modifiedpro tanto," they are actually 5447 regarding the Special Education Fund;
arguing that it is already dead, repealed and Presidential Decree No. 144 as amended by
useless for all intents and purposes because Presidential Decree Nos. 559 and 1741;
the Code has shorn PAGCOR of all power to Presidential Decree No. 231 as amended;
centralize and regulate casinos. Strictly Presidential Decree No. 436 as amended by
speaking, its operations may now be not only Presidential Decree No. 558; and Presidential
prohibited by the local government unit; in fact, Decree Nos. 381, 436, 464, 477, 526, 632, 752,
the prohibition is not only discretionary
but mandated by Section 458 of the Code if the
and 1136 are hereby repealed and rendered of mentioned as the source of funding in two later
no force and effect. enactments of Congress, to wit, R.A. 7309,
creating a Board of Claims under the
(d) Presidential Decree No. 1594 is hereby Department of Justice for the benefit of victims
repealed insofar as it governs locally-funded of unjust punishment or detention or of violent
projects. crimes, and R.A. 7648, providing for measures
for the solution of the power crisis. PAGCOR
(e) The following provisions are hereby revenues are tapped by these two statutes.
repealed or amended insofar as they are This would show that the PAGCOR charter has
inconsistent with the provisions of this Code: not been repealed by the Local Government
Sections 2, 16, and 29 of Presidential Decree Code but has in fact been improved as it were
No. 704; Sections 12 of Presidential Decree to make the entity more responsive to the fiscal
No. 87, as amended; Sections 52, 53, 66, 67, problems of the government.
68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, and 74 of Presidential
Decree No. 463, as amended; and Section 16 It is a canon of legal hermeneutics that instead
of Presidential Decree No. 972, as amended, of pitting one statute against another in an
and inevitably destructive confrontation, courts
must exert every effort to reconcile them,
(f) All general and special laws, acts, city remembering that both laws deserve a
charters, decrees, executive orders, becoming respect as the handiwork of a
proclamations and administrative regulations, coordinate branch of the government. On the
or part or parts thereof which are inconsistent assumption of a conflict between P.D. 1869
with any of the provisions of this Code are and the Code, the proper action is not to uphold
hereby repealed or modified accordingly. one and annul the other but to give effect to
both by harmonizing them if possible. This is
Furthermore, it is a familiar rule that implied possible in the case before us. The proper
repeals are not lightly presumed in the absence resolution of the problem at hand is to hold that
of a clear and unmistakable showing of such under the Local Government Code, local
intention. In Lichauco & Co. v. Apostol, 10 this government units may (and indeed must)
Court explained: prevent and suppress all kinds of gambling
within their territories except only those allowed
The cases relating to the subject of repeal by by statutes like P.D. 1869. The exception
implication all proceed on the assumption that reserved in such laws must be read into the
if the act of later date clearly reveals an Code, to make both the Code and such laws
intention on the part of the lawmaking power to equally effective and mutually complementary.
abrogate the prior law, this intention must be
given effect; but there must always be a This approach would also affirm that there are
sufficient revelation of this intention, and it has indeed two kinds of gambling, to wit, the illegal
become an unbending rule of statutory and those authorized by law. Legalized
construction that the intention to repeal a gambling is not a modern concept; it is probably
former law will not be imputed to the Legislature as old as illegal gambling, if not indeed more
when it appears that the two statutes, or so. The petitioners' suggestion that the Code
provisions, with reference to which the question authorizes them to prohibit all kinds of
arises bear to each other the relation of general gambling would erase the distinction between
to special. these two forms of gambling without a clear
indication that this is the will of the legislature.
There is no sufficient indication of an implied Plausibly, following this theory, the City of
repeal of P.D. 1869. On the contrary, as the Manila could, by mere ordinance, prohibit the
private respondent points out, PAGCOR is Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office from
conducting a lottery as authorized by R.A. 1169 not been enfeebled by the new provisions in
and B.P. 42 or stop the races at the San Lazaro the Constitution strengthening the policy of
Hippodrome as authorized by R.A. 309 and local autonomy. Without meaning to detract
R.A. 983. from that policy, we here confirm that Congress
retains control of the local government units
In light of all the above considerations, we see although in significantly reduced degree now
no way of arriving at the conclusion urged on than under our previous Constitutions. The
us by the petitioners that the ordinances in power to create still includes the power to
question are valid. On the contrary, we find that destroy. The power to grant still includes the
the ordinances violate P.D. 1869, which has power to withhold or recall. True, there are
the character and force of a statute, as well as certain notable innovations in the Constitution,
the public policy expressed in the decree like the direct conferment on the local
allowing the playing of certain games of chance government units of the power to tax, 12 which
despite the prohibition of gambling in general. cannot now be withdrawn by mere statute. By
and large, however, the national legislature is
The rationale of the requirement that the still the principal of the local government units,
ordinances should not contravene a statute is which cannot defy its will or modify or violate it.
obvious. Municipal governments are only
agents of the national government. Local The Court understands and admires the
councils exercise only delegated legislative concern of the petitioners for the welfare of their
powers conferred on them by Congress as the constituents and their apprehensions that the
national lawmaking body. The delegate cannot welfare of Cagayan de Oro City will be
be superior to the principal or exercise powers endangered by the opening of the casino. We
higher than those of the latter. It is a heresy to share the view that "the hope of large or easy
suggest that the local government units can gain, obtained without special effort, turns the
undo the acts of Congress, from which they head of the workman" 13 and that "habitual
have derived their power in the first place, and gambling is a cause of laziness and
negate by mere ordinance the mandate of the ruin." 14 In People v. Gorostiza, 15 we declared:
statute. "The social scourge of gambling must be
stamped out. The laws against gambling must
Municipal corporations owe their origin to, and be enforced to the limit." George Washington
derive their powers and rights wholly from the called gambling "the child of avarice, the
legislature. It breathes into them the breath of brother of iniquity and the father of mischief."
life, without which they cannot exist. As it Nevertheless, we must recognize the power of
creates, so it may destroy. As it may destroy, it the legislature to decide, in its own wisdom, to
may abridge and control. Unless there is some legalize certain forms of gambling, as was done
constitutional limitation on the right, the in P.D. 1869 and impliedly affirmed in the Local
legislature might, by a single act, and if we can Government Code. That decision can be
suppose it capable of so great a folly and so revoked by this Court only if it contravenes the
great a wrong, sweep from existence all of the Constitution as the touchstone of all official
municipal corporations in the State, and the acts. We do not find such contravention here.
corporation could not prevent it. We know of no
limitation on the right so far as to the We hold that the power of PAGCOR to
corporation themselves are concerned. They centralize and regulate all games of chance,
are, so to phrase it, the mere tenants at will of including casinos on land and sea within the
the legislature. 11 territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines, remains
unimpaired. P.D. 1869 has not been modified
This basic relationship between the national by the Local Government Code, which
legislature and the local government units has empowers the local government units to
prevent or suppress only those forms of contests, games and races their media of
gambling prohibited by law. subverting the aims and goals of true Philippine
sportsmanship;
Casino gambling is authorized by P.D. 1869.
This decree has the status of a statute that NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E.
cannot be amended or nullified by a mere MARCOS, by virtue of the powers vested in me
ordinance. Hence, it was not competent for the by the Constitution, and pursuant to
Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cagayan de Oro Proclamations No. 1081, dated September 21,
City to enact Ordinance No. 3353 prohibiting 1972 and No. 1104, dated January 17, 1973;
the use of buildings for the operation of a and General Order No. 1, dated September 22,
casino and Ordinance No. 3375-93 prohibiting 1972, do hereby order and decree that the
the operation of casinos. For all their following shall be part of the law of the land:
praiseworthy motives, these ordinances are
contrary to P.D. 1869 and the public policy Section 1. Definitions. For purposes of this
announced therein and are therefore ultra Decree, the following terms shall mean and be
vires and void. understood to be as hereunder indicated:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the a. Betting money or any object or article of
challenged decision of the respondent Court of value or representative of value upon the result
Appeals is AFFIRMED, with costs against the of any game, races and other sports contest.
petitioners. It is so ordered.
b. Game-fixing any arrangement, combination,
scheme or agreement by which the result of
any game, races or sports contests shall be
BETTING IN SPORTS CONTEST predicted and/or known other than on the basis
of the honest playing skill or ability of the
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 483 June 13, players or participants.
1974
c. Point-shaving any such arrangement,
PENALIZING BETTING, GAME-FIXING OR combination, scheme or agreement by which
POINT SHAVING AND MACHINATIONS IN the skill or ability of any player or participant in
SPORTS CONTESTS a game, races or sports contests to make
points or scores shall be limited deliberately in
WHEREAS, the evil that is gambling has again order to influence the result thereof in favor of
shown its ugly head in the recently-discovered one or other team, player or participant therein.
game-fixing or point- shaving scandals during
sports contests; d. Game-machinations any other fraudulent,
deceitful, unfair or dishonest means, method,
WHEREAS, one of the objectives of the New manner or practice employed for the purpose
Society is the development and promotion of of influencing the result of any game, races or
desirable moral and cultural values; sport contest.
WHEREAS, there is urgent need to protect one Section 2. Betting, game-fixing, point-shaving
youth and sports programs and the morality of or game machination unlawful. Game-fixing,
our society, especially the youth, from the point-shaving, machination, as defined in the
eroding influence of unscrupulous persons preceding section, in connection with the
who, through fraudulent schemes of game- games of basketball, volleyball, softball,
fixing or point-shaving and other machinations, baseball; chess, boxing bouts, "jai-alai", "sipa",
have made basketball and other sports "pelota" and all other sports contests, games or
races; as well as betting therein except as may of the Philippines and/or of the Secretary of
be authorized by law, is hereby declared National Defense.
unlawful.
Section 5. Repealing Clause. Article 197 of Act
Section 3. Penalty. Any violation of this No. 3815, otherwise known as the Revised
Decree, or of the rules and regulations Penal Code, as amended, all provisions of
promulgated in accordance herewith, shall be decrees, general orders, letters of instructions,
punished in the manner following: laws, executive orders and rules and
regulations which are inconsistent with this
a. When the offender is an official, such as Decree are hereby repealed.
promoter, referee, umpire, judge, or coach in
the game, race or sports contests, or the Section 6. Effectivity. This Decree shall take
manager or sponsor of any participating team, effect immediately upon publication thereof by
individual or player therein, or participants or the Secretary of the Department of Public
players in such games, races or other sports Information at least once in a newspaper of
contests, he shall, upon conviction, be general circulation.
punished by prision correccional in its
maximum period and a fine of 2,000 pesos with Done in the City of Manila, this 13th day of
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, June, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred
at the discretion of the court. This penalty shall and seventy-four.
also be imposed when the offenders compose
a syndicate of five or more persons. ILLEGAL COCKFIGTING
b. In case of any offender, he shall, upon PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 449 May 9,
conviction, be punished by prision correccional 1974
in its medium period and a fine of 1,000 pesos
with subsidiary imprisonment in case of COCKFIGHTING LAW OF 1974
insolvency at the discretion of the court.
WHEREAS, cockfighting has been and still is a
c. When the offender is an official or employee popular, traditional and customary form of
of any government office or agency concerned recreation and entertainment among Filipinos
with the enforcement or administration of laws during legal holidays, local fiestas, agricultural,
and regulations on sports the penalty provided commercial and industrial fairs, carnivals or
for in the preceding Section 3 a small be expositions;
imposed. In addition, he shall be disqualified
from holding any public office or employment WHEREAS, by reason of the aforestated
for life. If he is an alien, he may be deported. meaning and connotation of cockfighting in
relation to filipino customs and traditions, it
Section 4. Clearance for arrest, detention or should neither be exploited as an object of
prosecution. No person who voluntarily commercialism or business enterprise, nor
discloses or denounces to the President of the made a tool of uncontrolled gambling, but more
Philippine Amateur Athletic Federation or to the as a vehicle for the preservation and
National Sports Associations concerned and/or perpetuation of native Filipino heritage and
to any law enforcement/police authority any of thereby enhance our national identity.
the acts penalized by this Decree shall be
arrested, detained and/or prosecuted except NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E.
upon prior written clearance from the President MARCOS, President of the Philippines, by
virtue of the powers vested in me by the
Constitution, do hereby decree and order to be (c) Bet Taker of Promoter A person who calls
part of the laws of the land, the following: and takes care of bets from owners of both
gamecocks and those of other bettors before
Sec 1. Title. This Decree shall be known as the he orders commencement of the cockfight and
"Cockfighting Law of 1974". thereafter distributes won bets to the winners
after deducting a certain commission.
Section 2. Scope. This law shall govern the
establishment, operation, maintenance and (d) Gaffer (Taga Tari) A person knowledgeable
ownership of cockpits. in the art of arming fighting cocks with gaff or
gaffs on either or both legs.
Section 3. Declaration of Policy. It is hereby
declared a policy of the government to insure (e) Referee (Sentenciador) A person who
within the framework of the New Society watches and oversees the proper gaffing of
maximum development and promotion of fighting cocks, determines the physical
wholesome recreation and amusement to bring condition of fighting cocks while cockfighting is
about the following goals: in progress, the injuries sustained by the cocks
and their capability to continue fighting and
(a) To effectively control and regulate decides and make known his decision by work
cockfighting towards its establishment as a or gestures and result of the cockfight by
national recreation, relaxation and source of announcing the winner or declaring a tie or no
entertainment; contest game.
(b) To provide additional revenue for our (f) Bettor A person who participates in
tourism program; and cockfights and with the use of money or other
things of value, bets with other bettors or
(c) To remove and prevent excessive and through the bet taker or promoter and wins or
unreasonable business operation and profit loses his bet depending upon the result of the
considerations in the management of cockpits cockfight as announced by the Referee or
and, instead preserve Philippine customs and Sentenciador. He may be the owner of fighting
traditions and thereby enhance our national cock.
identity.
Section 5. Cockpits and Cockfighting: In
Section 4. Definition of Terms. As used in this General:
law, the following terms shall be understood,
applied and construed as follows: (a) Ownership, Operation and Management of
Cockpits. Only Filipino citizens not otherwise
(a) Cockfighting shall embrace and mean the inhibited by existing laws shall be allowed to
commonly known game or term "cockfighting own, manage and operate cockpits.
derby, pintakasi or tupada", or its equivalent Cooperative capitalization is encouraged.
terms in different Philippine localities.
(b) Establishment of Cockpits. Only one cockpit
(b) Zoning Law or Ordinance Either both shall be allowed in each city or municipality,
national or local city or municipal legislation except that in cities or municipalities with a
which logically arranges, prescribes, defines population of over one hundred thousand, two
and apportions a given political subdivision into cockpits may be established, maintained and
specific land uses as present and future operated.
projection of needs warrant.
(c) Cockpits Site and Construction. Cockpits
shall be constructed and operated within the
appropriate areas as prescribed in Zoning Law known as "Balikbayan", or for the support of
or Ordinance. In the absence of such law or national fund-raising campaigns for charitable
ordinance, the local executives shall see to it purposes as may be authorized by the Office of
that no cockpits are constructed within or near the President, upon resolution of a provincial
existing residential or commercial areas, board, city or municipal council, in licensed
hospitals, school buildings, churches or other cockpits or in playgrounds or parks: Provided,
public buildings. Owners, lessees, or operators that this privilege shall be extended for only one
of cockpits which are now in existence and do time, for a period not exceeding three days,
not conform to this requirement are given three within a year to a province, city, or municipality.
years from the date of effectivity of this Decree
to comply herewith. Approval or issuance of (f) Other games during cockfights prescribed.
building permits for the construction of cockpits No gambling of any kind shall be permitted on
shall be made by the city or provincial engineer the premises of the cockpit or place of
in accordance with their respective building cockfighting during cockfights. The owner,
codes, ordinances or engineering laws and manager or lessee off such cockpit and the
practices. violators of this injunction shall be criminally
liable under Section 8 hereof.
(d) Holding of Cockfights. Except as provided
in this Decree, cockfighting shall be allowed Section 6. Licensing of Cockpits. City and
only in licensed cockpits during Sundays and municipal mayors are authorized to issue
legal holidays and during local fiestas for not licenses for the operation and maintenance of
more than three days. It may also be held cockpits subject to the approval of the Chief of
during provincial, city or municipal, agricultural, Constabulary or his authorized
commercial or industrial fair, carnival or representatives. For this purpose, ordinances
exposition for a similar period of three days may be promulgated for the imposition and
upon resolution of the province, city or collection of taxes and fees not exceeding the
municipality where such fair, carnival or rates fixed under Section 13, paragraphs (a)
exposition is to be held, subject to the approval and (b); and 19; paragraph (g) 16 of
of the Chief of Constabulary or his authorized Presidential Decree No. 231, dated June 28,
representative: Provided, that, no cockfighting 1973, otherwise known as the Local Tax Code,
on the occasion of such fair, carnival or as amended.
exposition shall be allowed within the month of
a local fiesta or for more than two occasions a Section 7. Cockfighting Officials. Gaffers,
year in the same city or municipality: Provided, referees or bet takers or promoters shall not act
further, that no cockfighting shall be held on as such in any cockfight herein authorized,
December 30 (Rizal Day), June 12 (Philippine without first securing a license renewable every
Independence Day) November 30 (National year on their birthmonth from the city or
Heroes Day), Holy Thursday, Good Friday, municipality where such cockfighting is held.
Election or Referendum Day and during Cities and municipalities may charge a tax of
Registration Days for such election or not more than twenty pesos. Only licensed
referendum. gaffers, referees, bet takers or promoters shall
officiate in all kinds of cockfighting authorized
(e) Cockfighting for Entertainment of Tourists in this Decree.
or for Charitable Purposes. Subject to the
preceding subsection hereof, the Chief Section 8. Penal Provisions. Any violation of
Constabulary or his authorized representative the provisions of this Decree and of the rules
may also allow the holding of cockfighting for and regulations promulgated by the Chief of
the entertainment of foreign dignitaries or for
tourists, or for returning Filipinos, commonly
Constabulary pursuant thereto shall be

punished as follows:
a. By prision correccional in its maximum

period and a fine of two thousand pesos, with
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency,
when the offender is the financer, owner,
manger or operator of cockpit, or the gaffer,
referee or bet taker in cockfights; or the
offender is guilty of allowing, promoting or
participating in any other kind of gambling in the
premises of cockfights during cockfights.
b. By prision correccional or a fine of not less

than six hundred pesos nor more than two
thousand pesos or both, such imprisonment
and fine at the discretion of the court, with
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency,
in case of any other offender.
Section 9. Repealing Clause. The provisions

of Section 2285 and 2286 of the Revised Penal
Code, Republic Act No. 946, all laws, decrees,
rules and regulations, or orders which are
inconsistent with this Decree are hereby
repealed or modified accordingly.
Section 10. Date of Effectivity. This Decree

shall take effect after fifteen (15) days following
the completion of the publication in the Official
Gazette.
Done in the City of Manila, this 9th day of May,

in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and
seventy-four.
B. OFFENSES AGAINST DECENY AND "1. Those who shall publicly expound or
GOOD CUSTOMS proclaim doctrines openly contrary to public
morals;
IMMORAL DOCTRINES, OBSCEBE
PUBLICATIONS AND EXHIBITIONS "2. The authors of obscene literature, published
with their knowledge in any form, the editors
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 960 July publishing such literature, and the
14, 1976 owners/operators of the book store or other
establishments selling the same;
AMENDING ARTICLE 201 OF THE
REVISED PENAL CODE AND FOR "3. Those who in theaters, fairs cinematographs
OTHER PURPOSES or any other place, shall exhibit indecent or
immoral plays, scenes, acts or shows, including
WHEREAS, it is the obligation of the the following:
State to safeguard the morality of society,
particularly the youth, against the eroding "(a) Films which tend to incite
influence of immoral doctrines, obscene subversion, insurrection or rebellion
publications and exhibitions and indecent against the State;
shows;
"(b) Films which tend to undermine the
WHEREAS, in order to arrest the faith and confidence of the people in their
proliferation of such doctrines, Government and/or duly constituted
publications, exhibitions and shows, it is authorities;
necessary to amend the pertinent
provision of the Revised Penal Code; "(c) Films which glorify criminals or
condone crimes;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E.
MARCOS, President of the Philippines, "(d) Films which serve no other purpose
by virtue of the powers vested in me by but to satisfy the market for violence, lust
the Constitution, do hereby order and or pornography;
decree as part of the law of the land, the
following: "(e) Films which offend any race or
religion;
Section 1. Amendment of Article 201,
Revised Penal Code. Article 201 of Act "(f) Films which tend to abet traffic in the
Numbered Thirty-eight hundred and use of prohibited drugs;
fifteen, otherwise known as the Revised
Penal Code, is hereby amended to read "(g) Films contrary to law, public order,
as follows; morals, good customs, established
policies, lawful orders, decrees, edicts,
"Art. 201. Immoral doctrines, obscene and any or all films which in the judgment
publications and exhibitions, and of the Board of Censors for Motion
indecent shows. The penalty of prision Pictures or other agency established by
mayor or a fine ranging from six thousand the Government to oversee such motion
to twelve thousand pesos, or both such pictures are objectionable on some other
imprisonment and fine, shall be imposed legal or moral grounds.
upon:
"4. Those who shall sell, give away of exhibit
prints, engravings, sculptures or literature which
are offensive to morals."
Section 2. Confiscation of articles. The

literature, films, prints, engravings,
sculpture, paintings, or other materials
and articles involved in the violation
referred to in Section 1 hereof shall be
confiscated and forfeited in favor of the
Government to be destroyed.
Section 3. Jurisdiction. Violations of

Section 1 hereof shall be subject to trial
by the military tribunals and the offenders
shall be subject to arrest and detention
pursuant to existing laws, decrees,
orders and instructions promulgated
pursuant to Proclamations No. 1081,
dated September 21, 1972 and No. 1104,
dated January 17, 1973.
Section 4. Additional Penalties.

Additional penalties shall be imposed as
follows:
1. In case the offender is a government official

or employee who allows the violations of
Section 1 hereof, the penalty shall be imposed
in the maximum period and in addition, the
accessory penalties provided for in the Revised
Penal Code, as amended shall likewise be
imposed.
2. The license or permit of the theater,

cinematograph or other place or establishment
where the violation has been committed shall be
canceled temporarily or permanently,
depending upon the gravity of the violation as
determined by the proper military tribunal.
Section 5. Effectivity. This Decree shall

take effect fifteen (15) days after its
publication by the Department of
Information in two (2) newspapers of
general circulation.
Done in the City of Manila this 14th day

of July in the year of Our Lord, nineteen
hundred and seventy-six.
[ GR No. 20569, Oct 29, 1923 ] issues. The first point sustained by counsel for
the appellant is in nature a technical objection,
PEOPLE v. J. J. KOTTINGER growing out of the defendant's demurrer. The
second point, in reality the decisive issue, is as
DECISION suggested in the beginning of the decision. We
will take up the assignments of errors as thus
45 Phil. 352 classified in order.
MALCOLM, J.: Act No. 277 is the Philippine Libel Law. But
included therein is a section, No. 12, making
The question to be here decided is whether or obscene or indecent publications
not pictures portraying the inhabitants of the misdemeanors. Said section 12 which, it is
country in native dress and as they appear and contended by the Government, has here been
can be seen in the regions in which they live, are violated, and which, appellant argues, does not
obscene or indecent. Surprising as it may seem, apply to the information and the facts, reads as
the question is one of first impression not alone follows:
in the Philippine Islands, but in the United
States, Great Britain, and elsewhere. This will "Any person who writes, composes,
explain why a case which otherwise would be stereotypes, prints, publishes, sells, or keeps for
heard and voted in Division has been submitted sale, distributes, or exhibits any obscene or
to the court in banc for decision. indecent writing, paper, book, or other matter, or
who designs, copies, draws, engraves, paints,
On November 24, 1922, detective Juan or otherwise prepares any obscene picture or
Tolentino raided the premises known as print, or who moulds, cuts, casts, or otherwise
Camera Supply Co. at 110 Escolta, Manila. He makes any obscene or indecent figure, or who
found and confiscated the post-cards which writes, composes, or prints any notice or
subsequently were used as evidence against J. advertisement of any such writing, paper, book,
J. Kottinger, the manager of the company. print, or figure shall be guilty of a misdemeanor
and punished by a fine of not exceeding one
Out of these facts arose the criminal prosecution thousand dollars or by imprisonment not
of J. J. Kottinger in the Court of First Instance of exceeding one year, or both."
Manila. The information filed in court charged
him with having kept for sale in the store of the Counsel has gone to the trouble to make a
Camera Supply Co., obscene and indecent careful analysis of section 12 of the Libel Law
pictures, in violation of section 12 of Act No. 277. which is intended to bear out his thesis, first, that
To this information, the defendant interposed a section 12 does not prohibit the taking, selling,
demurrer based upon the ground that the facts and publishing of alleged obscene and indecent
alleged therein did not constitute an offense and pictures and prints, and second, that the
were not contrary to law; but the trial court information in this case charges no offense
overruled the demurrer and the defendant duly prohibited by section 12. Recall, however, that
excepted thereto. Following the presentation of the law provides punishment, among other
evidence by the Government and the defense, things, for any person who keeps for sale or
judgment was rendered finding the defendant exhibits any obscene or indecent writing, paper,
guilty of the offense charged and sentencing book, or other matter, and that the information
him to pay a fine of P50 with subsidiary charges the defendant, among other things, with
imprisonment in case of insolvency, and the having wilfully and feloniously kept for sale,
costs. distribution, or exhibition, obscene and indecent
pictures.
The five errors assigned by defendant-appellant
in this court divide themselves into two general
The phrase in the law "or other matter," was Woman." Exhibit A-1 is a picture of five young
apparently added as a sort of "catch-all." While boys and carries the legend "Greetings from the
limited to that which is of the same kind as its Philippines." Exhibit A-2 has the legend "Ifugao
antecedent, it is intended to cover kindred Belle, Philippines. Greetings from the
subjects. The rule of ejusdem generis invoked Philippines." Exhibit A-3 has the legend "Igorrot
by counsel is by no means a rule of universal Girl, Rice Field Costume." Exhibit A-4 has the
application and should be made to carry out, not legend "Kalinga Girls, Philippines." Exhibit A-5
to defeat, the legislative intent. Even if the has the legend "Moros, Philippines."
phrase "or other matter" be construed to mean
"or other matter of like kind," pictures and post- The prosecution produced no evidence proving
cards are not so far unrelated to writings, the post-cards obscene and indecent because it
papers, and books, as not to be covered by the thought the post-cards themselves the best
general words (Commonwealth vs. Dejardin evidence of that fact. The fiscal admitted in open
[1878], 126 Mass., 46; 30 Am. Rep., 652; court "that those pictures represented the
Brown vs. Corbin [1889], 40 Minn., 508). natives (non-Christians) in their native dress."
The defendant, on the other hand, attempted to
The line of argumentation is more refined than show that the pictures are true to life. Dr. H.
practical. Once conceded that section 12 of Act Otley Beyer, Professor in the University of the
No. 277 does not cover the present case, there Philippines, corroborated by other witnesses,
yet remain for application article 571, No. 2, of testified from his studies in various parts of the
the Penal Code, and section 730 of the Revised Islands, such as the Mountain Province, Abra,
Ordinances of the City of Manila. The section of Palawan, and Mindanao and Sulu, that none of
the Revised Ordinances cited is most specific the pictures represented poses which he had
when it provides in part that no person shall not observed on various occasions, and that the
"exhibit, circulate, distribute, sell, offer or costumes worn by the people in the pictures are
expose for sale, or give or deliver to another, or the true costumes regularly worn by them. Are
cause the same to be done, any lewd, indecent, such pictures obscene or indecent?
or obscene book, picture, pamphlet, card, print,
paper, writing, mould, cast, figure, or any other The word "obscene" and the term "obscenity"
thing." may be defined as meaning something
offensive to chastity, decency, or delicacy.
While admittedly the information is lacking in "Indecency" is an act against good behaviour
precision and while the content of section 12 of and a just delicacy. The test ordinarily followed
the Libel Law is not as inclusive as it might be, by the courts in determining whether a particular
we yet conclude that the information is not publication or other thing is obscene within the
fatally defective, and that said section 12 covers meaning of the statutes, is whether the
the alleged facts. tendency of the matter charged as obscene, is
to deprave or corrupt those whose minds are
We come now to decide the main issue. We open to such immoral influences and into whose
repeat that our own researches have confirmed hands a publication or other article charged as
the statement of counsel that not one parallel being obscene may fall. Another test of
case can be found. We must perforce reason obscenity is that which shocks the ordinary and
from the general to the specific and from common sense of men as an indecency. (29
universal principle to actual fact. Cyc., 1315; 8 R. C. L., 312.)
The pictures which it is argued offend against The Philippine statute does not attempt to define
the law on account of being obscene and obscene or indecent pictures, writings, papers,
indecent, disclose six different postures of non- or books. But the words "obscene or indecent"
Christian inhabitants of the Philippines. Exhibit are themselves descriptive. They are words in
A carries the legend "Philippines, Bontoc common use and every person of average
intelligence understands their meaning. Indeed, or presenting to the mind or view something
beyond the evidence furnished by the pictures which delicacy, purity, and decency forbid to be
themselves, there is but little scope for proof exposed.' This mere dictionary definition may be
bearing on the issue of obscenity or indecency. extended or amplified by the courts in actual
Whether a picture is obscene or indecent must practice, preserving, however, its essential
depend upon the circumstances of the case. thought, and having always due regard to the
(People vs. Muller [1884], 96 N. Y., 408; 48 Am. popular and proper sense in which the
Rep., 635.) legislature employed the term. Chief Justice
Cockburn, in Rex vs. Hicklin (L. R. 3 Q. B., 360),
Considerable light can be thrown on the subject said: 'The test of obscenity is this: Where the
by turning to the Federal Laws prohibiting the tendency of the matter charged as obscene is to
use of the mails for obscene matter and deprave and corrupt those whose minds are
prohibiting the importation into the Philippine open to such immoral influences, and into
Islands of articles, etc., of obscene or indecent whose hands a publication of this sort may fall;'
character. (U. S. Rev. Stat., art. 3893; 36 Stat. and where 'it would suggest to the minds of the
at L., 135; 7 Fed. Stat. Ann., 1194, sec. 3[b].) young of either sex, or even to persons of more
advanced years, thoughts of the most impure
"Obscene," as used in the Federal Statutes and libidinous character.' So, also, it has been
making it a criminal offense to place in the mails held that a book is obscene which is offensive
any obscene, lewd, or lascivious publication, to decency or chastity, which is immodest,
according to the United States Supreme Court which is indelicate, impure, causing lewd
and lesser Federal courts, signifies that form of thoughts of an immoral tendency.' U. S. vs.
immorality which has relation to sexual impurity, Bennett, 16 Blatchf., 338. Judge Thayer, in U.
and has the same meaning as is given at S. vs. Clarke, 38 Fed. Rep., 732, observed:
common law in prosecutions for obscene libel.
(Swearingen vs. U. S. [1896], 161 U. S., 446; U. " 'The word "obscene" ordinarily means
S. vs. Males [1892], 51 Fed., 41; 6 Words and something which is offensive to chastity;
Phrases, 4888, 4889.) something that is foul or filthy, and for that
reason is offensive to pure-minded persons.
The case of United States vs. Harmon ([1891], That is the meaning of the word in the concrete;
45 Fed., 414), grew out of an indictment for but when used, as in the statute, to describe the
depositing an obscene publication in a United character of a book, pamphlet, or paper, it
States post-office in violation of the Postal Law. means containing immodest and indecent
Judge Philips said: matter, the reading whereof would have a
tendency to deprave and corrupt the minds of
"The statute does not undertake to define the those into whose hands the publication might
meaning of the terms 'obscene,' etc., further fall whose minds are open to such immoral
than may be implied by the succeeding phrase, influences.'
'or other publication of an indecent character.'
On the well-recognized canon of construction "Laws of this character are made for society in
these words are presumed to have been the aggregate, and not in particular. So, while
employed by the law-maker in their ordinary there may be individuals and societies of men
acceptation and use. As they cannot be said to and women of peculiar notions or
have acquired any technical significance as idiosyncrasies, whose moral sense would
applied to some particular matter, calling, or neither be depraved nor offended by the
profession, but are terms of popular use, the publication now under consideration, yet the
court might perhaps with propriety leave their exceptional sensibility, or want of sensibility, of
import to the presumed intelligence of the jury. such cannot be, allowed as a standard by which
A standard dictionary says that 'obscene' mean its obscenity or indecency is to be tested. Rather
'offensive to chastity and decency; expressing is the test, what is the judgment of the aggregate
sense of the community reached by it? What is either exactly the same or nearly akin to those
its probable, reasonable effect on the sense of which are now impugned.
decency, purity, and chastity of society,
extending to the family, made up of men and It appears therefore that a national standard has
women, young boys and girls, the family, which been set up by the Congress of the United
is the common nursery of mankind, the States. Tested by that standard, it would be
foundation rock upon which the state reposes? extremely doubtful if the pictures here
challenged would be held obscene or indecent
"* * * To the pure all things are pure, is too by any state of Federal court. It would be
poetical for the actualities of practical life. There particularly unwise to sanction a different type of
is in the popular conception and heart such a censorship in the Philippines than in the United
thing as modesty. It was born in the Garden of States, or for that matter in the rest of the world.
Eden. After Adam and Eve ate of the fruit of the
tree of knowledge they passed from that The pictures in question merely depict persons
condition of perfectibility which some people as they actually live, without attempted
nowadays aspire to, and, their eyes being presentation of persons in unusual postures or
opened, they discerned that there was both dress. The aggregate judgment of the Philippine
good and evil; 'and they knew that they were community, the moral sense of all the people in
naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and the Philippines, would not be shocked by
made themselves aprons.' From that day to this photographs of this type. We are convinced that
civilized man has carried with him the sense of the post-card pictures in this case cannot be
shame, the feeling that there were some things characterized as offensive to chastity, or foul, or
on which the eye the mind should not look; and filthy.
where men and women become so depraved by
the use, or so insensate from perverted We readily understand the laudable motives
education, that they will not veil their eyes, nor which moved the Government to initiate this
hold their tongues, the government should prosecution. We fully appreciate the sentiments
perform the office for them in protection of the of colleagues who take a different view of the
social compact and the body politic." case. We would be the last to offend the
sensibilities of the Filipino people and to
As above intimated, the Federal statute sanction anything which would hold them up to
prohibits the importation or shipment into the ridicule in the eyes of mankind. But we
Philippine Islands of the following: "Articles, emphasize that we are not deciding a question
books, pamphlets, printed matter, manuscripts, in political theory or in social ethics. We are
typewritten matter, paintings, illustrations, dealing with a legal question predicated on a
figures or objects of obscene or indecent legal fact, and on this question and fact, we
character or subversive of public order." There reach the conclusion that there has not been
are, however, in the record, copies of reputable proved a violation of section 12 of the Libel Law.
magazines which circulate freely thruout the When other cases predicated on other states of
United States and other countries, and which facts are brought to our attention, we will decide
are admitted into the Philippines without them as they arise.
question, containing illustrations identical in
nature to those forming the basis of the We seem to recall the statement of counsel that
prosecution at bar. Publications of the Philippine the proprietor of the photographic concern
Government have also been offered in evidence whom he represents would on his own initiative
such as Barton's "Ifugao Law," the "Philippine place suitable and explicit inscriptions on the
Journal of Science" for October, 1906, and the pictures so that no one may be misled as to
Reports of the Philippine Commission for 1903, them. Indeed, he might even go further and out
1912, and 1913, in which are found illustrations of consideration for the natural sensibilities of
his customers, withdraw from sale certain Manila where they were exhibited, no doubt they
pictures which can be pointed out to him. are.
We hold that pictures portraying the inhabitants And the law prohibits the exhibition not only of
of the country in native dress and as they appear obscene pictures, but of indecent as well. (Sec.
and can be seen in the regions in which they 12, Act No. 277.)
live, are not obscene or indecent within the
meaning of the Libel Law. Disagreeing therefore I understand that the judgment appealed from
with the appellant on his technical argument but should have been affirmed.
agreeing with him on his main contention, it
becomes our duty to order the dismissal of the
information.
Judgment is reversed, the information is

dismissed, and the defendant-appellant is
acquitted with all costs de oficio. So ordered.
Johnson, Street, Avanceña,

Villamor, and Johns, JJ., concur.
Mr. Chief Justice Manuel Araullo was present at

the time this case was voted and then voted with
Mr. Justice Romualdez. (Sgd.) E. FINLEY
JOHNSON.
DISSENTING
ROMUALDEZ, J., with whom

concurs ARAULLO, C. J.:
I do not agree with the view taken by the majority

as to the nature of the photographic pictures in
question. While said pictures cannot, strictly, be
termed obscene, they must, however, be
regarded as indecent, for they are so.
Such pictures offend modesty and refinement,

and for this reason, they are indecent. This is
shown by common sense. No woman claiming
to be decent would dare to stand before the
public in Manila, where said pictures were
exhibited, in the same fashion as these pictures
are.
It is alleged that these pictures were taken from

nature in non-Christian regions. We agree that
in said regions they are not, perhaps, regarded
as offensive to modesty, and, therefore, are
accidentally not indecent there. But in the City of
PEOPLE v. APARICI also advances the argument that the reaction of

the low class and uncultured audience is an
Facts: unreliable gauge in determining the objective
indecency and decency of a performance. The
On February 3, 1953 Detectives Nibungco and court clarified that the test whether a particular
Jose accompanied by photographers Fajardo act is obscene is its tendency “to deprave or
and Domingo of the Manila Chronicle, went to corrupt those whose minds are open to such
Azcarraga Theatre, in order to observe what influences”, be they cultured or not.
was being exhibited by the accused Virginia
Aparici there. She was in a dimly lit stage
“dancing with her hips swaying” with nothing on
except nylon patches over her breasts and a
“too abbreviated pair of nylon panties to
interrupt her stark nakedness” and around her
waist was a “furry white girdle with a middle
piece punctuating attention on the thing she was
supposed to hide”. There were more than 100
customers and all of them were men. Most of
them have been howling and shouting in
tagalog: “sigue muna, sigue nakakalibog”.
Detectives Nibungco and Jose stopped the
show and asked the accused to put on her dress
and to surrender to them her brassiere and
panties.
In her defence, she claimed that her

performance (hula hula dance) was her
portrayal of the life of a widow whose guerrilla
husband was killed by the Japanese; depicting
the different emotions of the widow such as
sadness, anger and happiness. She was
prosecuted for violation of Article 201 of the
Revised Penal Code which penalizes:
“3. Those who in theatres, fairs, cinematographs

or any other place open to public view, shall
exhibit indecent or immoral plays, scenes, acts
and shows.”
Issue: WON accused-appelant’s dancing was

indecent or immoral in violation of article 201 of
the RPC?
Ruling: The court ruled that the accused had

exhibited indecent and immoral acts. The gauge
whether her dancing was immoral or indecent
was the reaction of the public. Evidently, the
spectators had given their unequivocal verdict
when they were howling and shouting: “Sigue
muna, sigue, nakakalibog”. Counsel for defense
G.R. No. L-7295 June 28, 1957 plea of not guilty, which was granted, and upon
rearraignment, she pleaded guilty to the charge.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff- In a decision dated October 12, 1953, Marina
appellee, Padan was found guilty as charged and
vs. sentenced to six months and one day of prision
MARINA PADAN Y ALOVA, COSME correccional and a fine of P200, with subsidiary
ESPINOSA, ERNESTO REYES and JOSE imprisonment in case of insolvency, not to
FAJARDO, defendants. exceed one-third of the principal penalty, with
MARINA PADAN Y ALOVA and JOSE the accessory penalties prescribed by the law,
FAJARDO, defendants-appellants. and to pay the proportionate costs. After trial of
the three remaining accused, they were all
Augusto Revilla for appellant Jose Fajardo. found guilty; Cosme Espinosa and Ernesto
W. M. Bayhon for appellant Marina Padan y Reyes were sentenced each to not less than six
Alova. months and one day of prision correccional and
Office of the Solicitor General Ambrosio Padilla not more than one year, one month and eleven
and Solicitor Jose P. Alejandro for appellee. days of prision correccional, to pay a fine of
P500, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of
MONTEMAYOR, J.: insolvency, not to exceed one-third of the
principal penalty, and to pay the proportionate
In the Court of First Instance of Manila, Marina costs. Jose Fajardo was sentenced to not less
Padan, Jose Fajardo y Garcia, Cosme than one year, one month and ten days
Espinosa, and Ernesto Reyes were charged of prision correccional and not more than one
with a violation of Article 201 of the Revised year eight months and twenty days, also
Penal Code, said to have been committed as of prision correccional, to pay a fine of P1,000,
follows: with subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency, not to exceed one-third of the
That on or about the 13th day of September, principal penalty and to pay the proportionate
1953, in the city of Manila, Philippines, the said costs. The army steel bed, the army woolen
accused conspiring and confederating together blanket, the pillow, the ladies' panties, and the
and mutually helping one another, did then and men's underwear, described in Exhibit C, were
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously exhibit declared confiscated.
or cause to be exhibited inside a building at the
corner of Camba Ext. and Morga Ext., Tondo, The four accused appealed in the decision, the
this City, immoral scenes and acts, to wit: the appeal having been sent to us. Appellants
said accused Jose Fajador y Garcia, being then Espinosa and Reyes failed to file their briefs
the manager and Ernesto Reyes y Yabut, as within the period prescribed by law and their
ticket collector and or exhibitor, willfully appeal was dismissed by resolution of this Court
,unlawfully and feloniously hired their co- of November 25, 1955, and the decision as to
accused Marina Palan y Alova and Cosme them became final and executory on January 7,
Espinosa y Abordo to act as performers or 1956, as appears from the entry of judgment.
exhibitionists to perform and in fact performed
sexual intercourse in the presence of many Because of her plea of guilty in the lower court,
spectators, thereby exhibiting or performing appellant Marina in her appeal do not question
highly immoral and indecent acts or shows her conviction; she merely urges the reduction
thereat. of the penalty by eliminating the prison
sentence. We do not feel warranted in
Upon arraignment, all pleaded not guilty. Later, interfering with the exercise of discretion in this
however, Marina Padan, with the assistance of matter, made by the lower court presided by
her counsel de parte and counsel de oficio, Judge Magno S. Gatmaitan. According to his
asked for permission to withdraw her former decision of October 12, 1953, in imposing the
sentence, he already considered Marina's plea to it only when he heard a commotion produced
of leniency, and so despite the recommendation by the raid conducted by the police.
of the fiscal that she be fined P600.00 in addition
to the prison sentence of six months and one The evidence on his active participation and that
day, his honor reduced the fine to only P200. he was the manager and one in charge of the
show is however ample, even conclusive. We
We believe that the penalty imposed fits the have carefully examined such evidence, and we
crime, considering its seriousness. As far as we are satisfied that they fully support the findings
know, this is the first time that the courts in this of the trial court. Such facts may be briefly stated
jurisdiction, at least this Tribunal, have been as follows: At the corner of Morga Extension and
called upon to take cognizance of an offense Camba Extension, Tondo, Manila, was a one
against morals and decency of this kind. We story building which judging from the picture
have had occasion to consider offenses like the exhibited is nothing but a shed, with a floor
exhibition of still moving pictures of women in space of eight by fifteen meters which was
the nude, which we have condemned for mainly used for playing ping-pong. A ping-pong
obscenity and as offensive to morals. In those table must have been placed in the center and
cases, one might yet claim that there was on two sides were built benches in tiers, so that
involved the element of art; that connoisseurs of the spectators seated on them could look down
the same, and painters and sculptors might find and see the game. On September 13, 1953,
inspiration in the showing of pictures in the however, the building was used for a different
nude, or the human body exhibited in sheer purpose. It was to be the scene of what was said
nakedness, as models in tableaux vivants. But to be an exhibition of human "fighting fish", the
an actual exhibition of the sexual act, preceded actual act of coitus or copulation. It must have
by acts of lasciviousness, can have no been advertised by word of mouth; tickets
redeeming feature. In it, there is no room for art. therefor were sold at P3 each, and the show was
One can see nothing in it but clear and supposed to begin at 8:00 o'clock in the
unmitigated obscenity, indecency, and an evening. About that time of the night, there was
offense to public morals, inspiring and causing already a crowd around the building, but the
as it does, nothing but lust and lewdness, and people were not admitted into it until about an
exerting a corrupting influence specially on the hour later, and the show did not begin until
youth of the land. We repeat that because of all about 9:15. The Manila Police Department must
this, the penalty imposed by the trial court on have gotten wind of the affair; it bought tickets
Marina, despite her plea of guilty, is neither and provided several of its members who later
excessive nor unreasonable. attended the show, but in plain clothes, and after
the show conducted a raid and made arrests. At
Going to the appeal of Jose Fajardo y Garcia, the trial, said policemen testified as to what
while he does not deny the fact of the actually took place inside the building. About
commission of the offense charged, he in its that two civilians who attended the affair gave
he was not the manager or the person incharge testimony as to what they saw.
of the show or proceedings on the night of
September 13, 1953; that his participation, if he The customers not provided with tickets actually
participate at all, was to play the role of an paid P3 at the entrance to defendant Ernesto
innocent bystander, but that because of his Reyes. He also collected tickets. In all, there
popularity in the neighborhood, being popularly were about ninety paying customers, while
known as a "siga-siga" character, he was about sixteen were allowed to enter free,
requested by the spectators to select the man presumably friends of the management. Jose
and the woman to engage or indulge in the Fajardo y Garcia was clearly the manager of the
actual act of coitus before the spectators; that show. He was at the door to see to it that the
after making the selection, he did not even care customers either were provided with tickets or
to witness the act but left the scene and returned paid P3.00 entrance fee. He even asked them
from whom they had bought the tickets. He P3.00 Admit one
ordered that an army steel bed be placed at the PLEASURE SHOW
center of the floor, covered with an army blanket Place: P. Morga Ext. and Camba Ext.
and provided with a pillow. Once the spectators, Time : 8:00 o'clock sharp,
about 106 in number, were crowded inside that
small building, the show started. Fajardo and superimposed on the same is the rubber
evidently to arouse more interest among the stamped name "Pepe Fajardo," which
customers, asked them to select among two defendant Fajardo admits to be his name.
girls presented who was to be one of the Considering all the above circumstances, we
principal actors. By pointing to or holding his agree with the trial court that Jose Fajardo is the
hand over the head of each of the two women most guilty of the four, for he was the one who
one after the other, and judging by the shouts of conducted the show and presumably derived
approval emitted by the spectators, he decided the most profit or gain from the same.
that defendant Marina Padan was the subject of
popular approval, and he selected her. After her As regards the penalty imposed by the trial court
selection, the other woman named Concha, left. on appellant Fajardo, we agree with the Solicitor
Without much ado, Fajardo selected Cosme General that the same is correct, except the
Espinosa to be Marina's partner. Thereafter, minimum thereof which is beyond the legal
Cosme and Marina proceeded to disrobe while range, and which should be reduced from one
standing around the bed. When completely year, one month, and ten days of prision
naked, they turned around to exhibit their bodies correccional to only six months of arresto
to the spectators. Then they indulged in mayor.
lascivious acts, consisting of petting, kissing,
and touching the private parts of each other. With the modification above-mentioned, the
When sufficiently aroused, they lay on the bed decision appealed from by Marina Padan and
and proceeded to consummate the act of coitus Jose Fajardo are hereby affirmed, with costs
in three different positions which we deem against both.
unnecessary to describe. The four or five
witnesses who testified for the Government
when asked about their reaction to what they
saw, frankly admitted that they were excited
beyond description. Then the police who were
among the spectators and who were previously
provided with a search warrant made the raid,
arrested the four defendants herein, and took
pictures of Marina and Cosme still naked and of
the army bed, which pictures were presented as
exhibits during the trial. From all this, there can
be no doubt that Jose Fajardo y Garcia contrary
to what he claims, was the person in charge of
the show. Besides, as found by the trial court
and as shown by some of the tickets collected
from the spectators, submitted as exhibits, said
tickets while bearing on one side printed matter
regarding an excursion to Balara to be held on
August 30, 1953 from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,
sponsored by a certain club, on the other side
appears the following typewritten form, reading:

Title V and Vi Crim Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Title V and Vi Crim Law

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

Title V and Vi Crim Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TITLE V AND VI CRIMINAL LAW ACJUCO 1

V. CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND dependence through sustainable programs of

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165 June 7, 2002 ARTICLE I

AN ACT INSTITUTING THE Definition of terms

(x) Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or (dd) Practitioner. – Any person who is a licensed

acts provided for in this Act and uses his/her ARTICLE II

Section 10. Manufacture or Delivery of (2) 10 grams or more of morphine;

this Act, in addition to the administrative immunity from prosecution and

Section 39. Accreditation of Drug Testing

(3) Quantity and name of the veterinarians or practitioners shall be

(3) Health, socio-cultural, psychological, Section 45. Publication and Distribution of

ARTICLE VI (2) any employee, officer, or resident of

ARTICLE VIII (1) He/she has complied with the rules

guidelines therein formulated shall be (3) Encourage, assist and accredit

members shall be in an ex officio capacity and (8) Secretary of the Department of

(p) Receive in trust legacies, gifts and manager of a partnership, corporation,

The PDEA shall be headed by a Director Management; Logistics Management; and

authorized to possess firearms, in from which dangerous drugs may be

ARTICLE XII (b) To ensure transparency and require

Section 95. Congressional Oversight (e) To determine inherent weaknesses in

To carry out the powers and functions of the

The Oversight Committee on Dangerous Drugs

Section 98. Limited Applicability of the Revised

Section 99. Separability Clause. – If for any

Section 100. Repealing Clause. – Republic Act

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7659 Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 20 of

2. 40 grams or more of morphine; Any apprehending or arresting officer who

inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are

SEC. 5. Effectivity. – This Act shall take effect

Street, Quezon City. Lim was likewise We affirm.

II. In this connection, We cite with approval the

Sec. 9. Discharge of the accused to be state

As correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General,

Finally, appellant alleges that the testimony of

Thereafter, the investigators marked, SO ORDERED.4

Article III, Section 2 of the Philippine 4. Consented warrantless search;

While it is true that the arresting officer failed to

Further, the actions of the police officers, in

In sum, the prosecution successfully

WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises

upon the advice of Corazon Sinosa, a civilian

"WHEREFORE, finding the accused HEDISHI IV

"Pursuant to Section 20, Article IV of Republic V

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN REASONABLE DOUBT ON THE GUILT OF

ON THE ASSUMPTION EX GRATIA XV

X Considering that the above assigned errors are

XII Pertinent is Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6235

DEL CASTILLO, J.: Contrary to law.3

Mere allegations and self-serving statements CRIMINAL CASE NO. 13782-D

Factual Antecedents CRIMINAL CASE NO. 13783-D

Contrary to law.5 h. one (1) rectangular glass marked as Exh. D8;

About how many persons were inside who were Q-

Q- They were close to each other.

Will you tell us if they are male or female or Q-

Six (6) male persons and one (1) female. A-

Q- Only for a while, only for a glance, sir.47

Therefore, Apelo, Abache, Cipriano, Latario,

All told, this Court upholds the presumption of