You are on page 1of 12

Republic of the Philippines

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 2
Las Pinas City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff,
CRIM. CASE NO.
-versus- R-LLP-18-XXXXX-
CR
AAA, BBB, CCC, All Minors aged
14, 16, and 17, respectively
Accused.
x----------------------------------x

DECISION
The Case

This is a criminal case for illegal possession of dangerous
drugs under Section 13, Article II of Republic Act 9165,
otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs of
2002, as amended by Republic Act 10640.

The Evidence for the Prosecution

One unassuming night somewhere in Las Piñas City,
Policeman-Arresting Officer assigned at the Las Piñas City
Police Station caught in flagrante delicto three youngsters
smoking marijuana along an alley. Policeman-Arresting
Officer arrested the three and further found 20 grams of
marijuana in their possession.

Policeman-Arresting Officer then brought the three
suspects to the police station. There the Investigating Officer
received the evidence, including the 20 grams of marijuana
found in possession of the three suspects and conducted the
investigation. After which, the drug items were brought to the
PNP Crime Laboratory. There, the Forensic Chemist received
the drug items and tested them and confirmed they were Commented [Office1]: The manner this was written, more
of “antecedent facts” than evid of prosec.
indeed marijuana.
I suggest unahin mo facts, then evid of prosec, evid of
accused

regardless of the quantity and purity of such dangerous drugs. (2) Whether or not they should be meted with the penalties. (2) such possession is not authorized by law.g they must not be called accused but children in conflict with The Court’s Ruling the law For me isa lang ang issu #1. sixteen (16). testifying that the cigarettes they were smoking were altered with marijuana. just phrase it accordingly The Prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 13. and should they be found guilty. considering their minority. Article II of Republic Act 9165. shall suffer the maximum penalties provided for in Section 11 of this Act. or in the proximate company of at least two (2) persons. respectively. Article II.Decision People v. Commented [Office3]: May special treatment si juvenile welfare act sa mga bata e. Page 2 of 12 . The Issues The issues before this Court are the following: (1) Whether or not the three accused were guilty of violation of Section 13. Republic Act 9165. The provision reads: Section 13. Commented [Office4]: See supra Article II. and CCC were aged fourteen (14). BBB. The three accused were also presented and each denied the charges brought against them. or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Possession of Dangerous Drugs During Parties. as amended by Republic Act 10640. The elements for the illegal possession of dangerous Commented [Office6]: Use jurisprudence as basis for elements drugs under Section 13. of Republic Act 9165 are: (1) possession by the accused of an item or object identified to be a prohibited or dangerous drug. this case is both use and possession based sa allegation possessing any dangerous drug during a party. or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. or at a social gathering or meeting. AAA. Commented [Office2]: infra who testified that the accused AAA. BBB. and CCC R-LLP-18-XXXXX-CR x-------------------------------x The Evidence for the Defense The Defense presented each of the accused’s mother. – Any person found Commented [Office5]: Wala ka ruling on use. Social Gatherings or Meetings. and seventeen (17) years old.

maybe follow format of Philippine Manual of Legal Citation ata na For a warrantless arrest of a person caught in flagrante booklet. xxx --. Commented [Office11]: Sa testimony ba ni police galling yan? Section 5(a). Pero form naman I guess is secondary lang 1 People v. 3 August 2010 Page 3 of 12 . BBB. is actually committing. in his presence. Commented [Office7]: How? Isa isa Warrantless Arrest and Search Incident to the Warrantless Arrest Leading to the Seizure of Dangerous Drugs Valid Commented [Office8]: I suggest ito ay “Search incidental to warrantless arrest” lang It must be pointed out at the onset that what transpired was a warrantless arrest. the police. No. and CCC R-LLP-18-XXXXX-CR x-------------------------------x (3) the free and conscious possession of the drug by the accused. Racho. Then and there. or in the company of at least two persons. the person to be arrested has committed. AAA. as an incident to an arrest. G. xxx --. which yielded the twenty Commented [Office10]: Performed a search (20) grams of marijuana that is now the corpus delicti of this criminal action for illegal possession of dangerous drugs in the proximate company of at least two persons. (4) the accused possessed the prohibited drug or dangerous drug during a social gathering or meeting. is actually these two requisites: committing. improve arresting officer arrested the three accused.2 Commented [Office16]: I suggest you follow manual of legal citations in citing. the policeman-arresting officer saw them smoking what was believed by him to be marijuana. 202687. if paraphrased mo arresting officer.R. No. without any inkling he would chance upon the three accused at an alley on a nighttime. or is attempting to commit an offense. and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the Commented [Office15]: Sakto ba to? Pls recheck.1 All the elements are present in this case. Rule 113. G. may PDF file ata sa internet delicto under the above provision to be valid. two requisites must concur: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an Commented [Office14]: The validity of an inflagrante delicto warrantless arrest is found upon the concurrence of overt act indicating that he has just committed. made a search.R. 14 January 2015 2 People v. and. 186529. or is attempting to commit a crime. to wit: Commented [Office12]: If ako to. when. Pavia. Commented [Office9]: Run-on. xxx Commented [Office13]: In making block quotations.Decision People v. cite ko jurisprudence citing R113 (a) When. of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure authorizes the arrest without a warrant of a person caught in flagrante delicto.

the search that proceeded thereafter. G. BBB.Decision People v. hindi malinaw na nailatag minor premise Defense of Frame-Up Did Not Overcome Presumption of Regularity of Performance of Official Duty In any criminal prosecution. Rule 126. as a rule.R. Thus. AAA. jurisprudence teaches us that there must be clear and 3 People v.3 Thus. No.A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search warrant. the accused’s claim of defense of frame-up . 201111. like alibi. prevail over the affirmative testimonies of truthful witnesses. 6 August 2014 Page 4 of 12 . Search incident to lawful arrest. The defense of frame-up or denial in drug cases requires strong and convincing evidence because of the presumption that the law enforcement agencies acted in the regular performance of their official duties. was also valid. Section 13.cannot be sustained to overcome the presumption of regularity accorded by law to public officers in the performance of duty. are considered weak defenses and have been invariably viewed by the courts with disfavor for they can just as easily be concocted but are difficult to prove. of the Rules of Court provides: Section 13. No. 203026. . bare denials and accusations of frame-up cannot.4 In order to overcome the presumption of regularity. the seizure of the twenty (20) grams of marijuana was valid. Pasion. and CCC R-LLP-18-XXXXX-CR x-------------------------------x The warrantless arrest being valid. as an incident of the lawful warrantless search made after a lawful warrantless arrest. 28 January 2015 4 People v. Negative in their nature. Cerdon. Commented [Office17]: This is just major premise and conclusion. which yielded to the discovery of the twenty (20) grams of marijuana. G.that the cigarettes were altered with marijuana . the defenses of denial and frame-up.R.

as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated. of Republic Act 9165. AAA. Kasi not complied with.6 The Rule on Chain of Custody Was Substantially Complied Commented [Office18]: Recheck According sa testimonies mga police complied with ba. proper performance of the police officers of their official duty. seized and/or surrendered. 21. thereby rendering inapplicable the presumption of regularity to the acts of the police officers. immediately after seizure and 5 Pasion. Barte. not. BBB. Pero I think.7 the Supreme no justification sa testimony.Decision People v.R. acquit ko yan. Article II. 1 March 2017 Page 5 of 12 . custody rule. as amended by Republic Act 10640 reads: SEC. controlled precursors and essential chemicals. that presumption of regularity can only So dapat may justifications. 202687. for proper disposition in the following manner: (1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the dangerous drugs. if yes In turn. of Republic Act 9165. of If ako magrule. and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs. and CCC R-LLP-18-XXXXX-CR x-------------------------------x convincing evidence that the police officers did not properly perform their duties or that they were prompted with ill motive. Court acquitted the accused for failure by the police officers to observe the procedure outlined in Section 21. controlled precursors and essential chemicals. No. in People v. Supra. in the absence of clear and convincing evidence that the police officers were inspired by any improper motive. Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated. Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs. this presumption of regularity is anchored on the then no prob. Section 21. plant sources of dangerous drugs. tapos Republic Act 9165. etc why not comploied with. Article II. 14 January 2015 7 G. G. In drug-related cases. instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall. 179749. this Court will not appreciate the defense of denial or frame-up and instead apply the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty by law enforcement agents. Thus.5 Consequently. Seized. Article II. arise if the police officers faithfully observed the chain of Discuss this saka pa lang papasok si substantial compliance. as demanded by Section 21.R. No. – The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs. Pavia. Note 3 6 People v. Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals.

controlled precursors and essential chemicals. the same shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination. (2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs. in case of warrantless seizures: Provided. plant sources of dangerous drugs. or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team. xxx --. xxx The chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a Page 6 of 12 . and controlled precursors and essential chemicals does not allow the completion of testing within the time frame. shall be issued immediately upon the receipt of the subject item/s: Provided. finally. That noncompliance of these requirements under justifiable grounds. shall not render void and invalid such seizures and custody over said items. a partial laboratory examination report shall be provisionally issued stating therein the quantities of dangerous drugs still to be examined by the forensic laboratory: Provided. and CCC R-LLP-18-XXXXX-CR x-------------------------------x confiscation. which shall be done by the forensic laboratory examiner. whichever is practicable. plant sources of dangerous drugs.Decision People v. conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized. xxx --. That the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served. That a final certification shall be issued immediately upon completion of the said examination and certification. or his/her representative or counsel. BBB. 3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results. as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team. as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment. That when the volume of dangerous drugs. however. with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided. AAA.

and then finally turning over the same to the forensic chemist.10 the Court ruled: “Evidently. Nevertheless. 172953. The policeman-arresting officer could not be expected to have had with him the necessary materials and means to properly mark and photograph the seized marijuana as he was not in any pre-arranged operation. G. and the forensic chemist all point to a conclusion that while.R.R. based on the evidence on record. 8 Malillin v. nonetheless. G. AAA. the investigating officer. the law requires "substantial" and not necessarily "perfect adherence" as long as it can be proven that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. 213607. People. No. admittedly. by Republic Act 10640. the noncompliance was on justifiable grounds and the integrity and evidentiary value of seized item was preserved by the apprehending officer. 30 April 2008 9 People v. there was no perfect chain of custody. No.Decision People v. and CCC R-LLP-18-XXXXX-CR x-------------------------------x finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. Thus. he was able to submit the seized marijuana to the investigating officer. He merely chanced upon the three accused at an alley when he passed by on the fateful night. BBB. in People v. Piad. Hementiza. gave statutory recognition to the Section 21.R. The seizure of the twenty (20) grams of marijuana was made as an incident to a warrantless arrest when the three accused were caught in flagrante delicto. Article II. 22 March 2017 10 G. of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act 9165. received the evidence and conducted the investigation. the chain Commented [Office19]: Pls recheck of custody over the dangerous drug must be shown to Ang gusto mo ba sabihin ay ang corpus delicti ay ang establish the corpus delicti.” In the case at bar. who. of Republic Act 9165. 227398.9 presentation Or ang corpus delicti ay yung drugs utself? The amendment to Section 21. who conducted the examination and confirmed that the seized item was indeed marijuana. the combined testimonies of the arresting officer. No.8 The corpus delicti in cases involving dangerous drugs is the presentation of the dangerous drug itself. 25 January 2016 Page 7 of 12 . in turn. Thus.

6. Where the offender is a minor. the child shall be subjected to an intervention program pursuant to Section 20 of this Act. 3815). Republic Act 9344. Section 98 of the same law provides for the limited applicability of the Revised Penal Code. Violation of Section 13. However. BBB. aged fourteen (14). A child is deemed to be fifteen (15) years of age on the day of the fifteenth anniversary of his/her birthdate. It provides: Section 98. respectively. took effect in 2006 and modified in part the law on criminal liability of minors. – Notwithstanding any law. Page 8 of 12 . the provisions of the Revised Penal Code (Act No. except in the case of minor offenders. xxx On the other hand. Republic Act 9344. However. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. significant be sa case yung dates? Section 6. of Republic Act 9165 imposes the maximum penalties established in Section 11 of the same law. Article II. otherwise known as the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006. which took effect in 2013. Article II. (underscoring supplied) xxx --. Limited Applicability of the Revised Penal Code. xxx --. the maximum imposable penalty of life imprisonment to death under Section 11 shall also apply to violation of Section 13 of the same law. – A child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability. regardless of the quantity and purity of the dangerous drug. Thus. rule or regulation to the contrary.Decision People v. and CCC R-LLP-18-XXXXX-CR x-------------------------------x Criminal Liability of the Individual Accused Having established all the elements sufficient for a conviction for violation of Section 13. as amended. and seventeen (17). BBB. AAA. sixteen (16). The same was amended by Republic Act 10630. as amended. and CCC. we know come to propriety of imposing criminal liability upon each of the accused AAA. shall not apply to the provisions of this Act. the penalty for acts punishable by life imprisonment to death provided herein shall be reclusion perpetua to death. when the offenders are minors. Commented [Office20]: Why did you mention the dates. of Republic Act 9165. provides: SEC.

notwithstanding the provisions of Republic Act 9165. Commented [Office21]: See jurisprudence. of Republic Act 9344. xxx --. the fourteen-year old AAA incurs no criminal liability. otherwise known as the Child and Youth Welfare Code. following Section 6 and Section 20-A. such child shall be subjected to the appropriate proceedings in accordance with this Act. was also amended to include a new Section 20-A. However. rape. 603. The exemption from criminal liability herein established does not include exemption from civil liability. infanticide. as amended. which shall be enforced in accordance with existing laws. murder. With respect to the two other accused BBB and CCC. unless he/she has acted with discernment. Serious Crimes Committed by Children Who Are Exempt From Criminal Responsibility. aged sixteen (16) and seventeen (17). his age having proved by the testimony of his mother. AAA. in this case. xxx Section 20. he is deemed a neglected defense/mitigating circumstance? child under Presidential Decree No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) punishable by more than twelve (12) years of imprisonment. destructive arson. which reads: SEC. Thus. robbery. or carnapping where the driver or occupant is killed or raped or offenses under Republic Act No. – A child who is above twelve (12) years of age up to fifteen (15) years of age and who commits parricide. BBB. 20-A. as amended. 603. shall be deemed a neglected child under Presidential Decree No. with homicide or rape. and CCC R-LLP-18-XXXXX-CR x-------------------------------x A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age shall likewise be exempt from criminal liability and be subjected to an intervention program.Decision People v. and shall be mandatorily placed in a special facility within the youth care faculty or ‘Bahay Pag- asa’ called the Intensive Juvenile Intervention and Support Center (IJISC). in which case. testimony ba proof required to appreciate minority as a Republic Act 9344. and shall undergo an intervention program and shall be mandatorily placed in a special facility within the youth care faculty or the “Bahay Pag- asa” called the Intensive Juvenile Intervention and Support Center (IJISC). respectively at the Page 9 of 12 . kidnapping and serious illegal detention where the victim is killed or raped. xxx --.

No. Commented [Office22]: How.11 The manner of committing the crime may show discernment by the accused. showed discernment in knowingly possessing the same. in People v. Republic Act 9344. BBB. No.12 the court ruled that when the minor committed the crime during nighttime to avoid detection.R. respectively. this Court finds the following: (1) With respect to the fourteen (14) year old. As earlier stated. they exhibited discernment when they smoked marijuana. the evidence showed that both acted with discernment. 40176. as amended by Republic Act 10630. JBL Reyes. being exempted from criminal liability. as amended by Republic Act 10640. of Republic Act 9165. Magsino. and CCC R-LLP-18-XXXXX-CR x-------------------------------x time of the commission of offense. the penalty for violation of Section 13 was life imprisonment to death. 24 November 2009 12 G.13 Commented [Office23]: Baka dapat mauna itong parangraph before yung comment ko immediately before this In this case. pursuant to Section 20-A. but is ordered to undergo intervention program and be placed in a special facility within the youth care faculty or the “Bahay Pag-asa” called the Intensive Juvenile Intervention and Support Center (IJISC). hence. Thus. and in line with the decision 11 Section 4[j].Decision People v. it is reduced to reclusion perpetua to death. 2017 Edition Page 10 of 12 . WHEREFORE. he manifested discernment. Revised Penal Code Book 1. and consequently. A. 02-1-18-SC. Considering that the imposition of death penalty was suspended by Republic Act 9346. Article II. or the Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law. show it Discernment means the capacity of the child at the time of the commission of the offense to understand the differences between right and wrong and the consequence of the wrongful act. 3 May 1934 13 Page 235. in consideration of the above premises. (2) With respect to the two accused aged sixteen (16) and seventeen (17) years old. the accused were caught in flagrante delicto smoking on a nighttime at an alley. the Court finds them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section Commented [Office24]: Suspended sentencing until age 18 di ba? 13. AAA. but in view of Section 98 of the same law.M. the criminal action against him is dismissed.

14 May 2018. or reclusion temporal.14 the penalty imposable can only be reclusion perpetua. 166401. aged sixteen (16) and seventeen (17). Las Piñas City. The two accused are ordered to undergo diversion program. and CCC R-LLP-18-XXXXX-CR x-------------------------------x in People v. AAA. However. Thus.Decision People v. No pronouncement as to cost. as amended and the Rule on Juvenile in Conflict with the Law. MILDRED JACINTO MARQUEZ Presiding Judge RTC Branch 2. promulgated on 24 November 2009.R. Bon. 30 October 2006 Page 11 of 12 . in accordance with Section 48 of the Rule on Juvenile in Conflict with the Law. SO ORDERED.Family Court Las Piñas City KGM/14-May-2018 14 G. the two accused BBB and CCC. No. hence the penalty shall be one degree lower. as provided under Republic Act 9344. which is a divisible penalty. the sentences are hereby suspended until each of the accused reaches the eighteen (18) years old. The accused shall have the benefit of the privilege mitigating circumstance of minority. shall each suffer the penalty of prision mayor medium as minimum up to reclusion temporal medium as the maximum. and Section 38 of Republic Act 9344. BBB. HON.

AAA. BBB. and CCC R-LLP-18-XXXXX-CR x-------------------------------x Page 12 of 12 .Decision People v.