1.

What law repealed Articles 190 to 194 of the Revised Penal Code
pertaining to Title Five, Book II of the Revised Penal Code on
Crimes Relative to Opium and Other Prohibited Drugs? Was the
repeal express or implied?

Articles 190-194 of the Revised Penal Code were repealed by Republic Act
No. 6425, known as the “Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972,” which took effect on
March 30, 1972, as amended by P.D. No. 1683 and further amended by
Republic Act No. 7659.

Republic Act No. 9165, known as the “Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs

Act of 2002,” which took effect on July 4, 2002, in turn repealed Republic Act
No. 6425 and amended Republic Act No. 7659.

2. What is the governing law with regard to the regulation of

dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals in
the Philippines at present?

Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of

2002, as amended by Republic Act No. 10640 is the governing law at present.

3. Are violations of Republic Act No. 9165 (2002) or the

Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 mala in se or mala
prohibita?

According to the case of People vs. Guiara (GR 186497, September 17,
2009), it bears stressing that this crime [violation of R.A. 9165] is mala
prohibita, and as such, criminal intent is not an essential element. Further,
possession, under the law, includes not only actual possession, but also
constructive possession. Actual possession exists when the drug is in the
immediate physical possession or control of the accused. Constructive
possession, on the other hand, exists when the drug is under the dominion and
control of the accused or when he has the right to exercise dominion and
control over the place where it is found.

Also, the prosecution must prove that the accused had animus
possidendi or the intent to possess the drugs. In U.S. v. Bandoc, the Court
ruled that the finding of a dangerous drug in the house or within the premises
of the house of the accused is prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus
possidendi and is enough to convict in the absence of a satisfactory
explanation.