1. An accused is charged with violation of Sec.

5 (illegal sale of dangerous drugs) and Sec 11 (illegal

possession of dangerous drugs) of RA 9165 and violation of RA 10591. The Regional Trial Court decided
to acquit the accused in Sec 5 & 11 RA 9165 charges but it convicted the accused for violation of RA
10591 for having been in his possession, after the buy-bust operation (drugs), an unlicensed firearm. Is
this correct?

No, the RTC’s decision to acquit the accused for his violation of sections 5 & 11 of RA 9165 is wrong.
Under the law, a person who illegally sells and/or illegally possesses dangerous drugs shall be penalized by
life imprisonment and a fine. In this case, the accused is apprehended and arrested in a buy-bust
operation for illegally selling and illegally possessing dangerous drugs. Therefore, the accused should be
penalized. (as long as the prosecution can produce and present the “corpus delicti” or the body of the
crime, which is the confiscated drugs)

On the other hand, the conviction of the accused for the possession of an unlicensed firearm is correct.
Under the law, the possession of an unregistered firearm is an element of illegal possession of firearms
and ammunition and is an offense under RA 10591. The warrantless search is valid because it is incidental
to a legitimate buy-bust operation. In this case, an unlicensed firearm was recovered from the possession
of the accused after the buy-bust operation. Therefore, the court’s decision to convict the accused for
violating RA 10591 is correct.

(A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment, in which the violator is caught in flagrante delicto. There is
a valid warrantless arrest in in flagrante delicto act. A warrantless search is valid if it is incidental to a
lawful arrest.)
2. Manny, a 22-year-old student has a younger brother AJ, 15 years old. Sometime last year, Manny
went to the school of AJ to give the allowance of the latter. When Manny was about to give the
allowance of AJ, Gener who is the school bully went to AJ and told him “Ano, malakas ka na, suntukan na
tayo sa labas ng school” to which AJ, being a meek person opted not to respond. Gener went on to bully
and threaten AJ with empty words without knowing that Manny was there. Fed up with the bullying of
Gener to AJ, Manny boxed Gener, causing him injuries that will need him 7 days to recuperate. Manny is
subsequently charged with violation of Section 10 (a) in relation to Section 3 (b)(2) of RA 7610. On the
facts presented, should he be held liable?
Section 3. Definition of Terms. –

(b) "Child abuse" refers to the maltreatment, whether habitual or not, of the child which includes any of the following:

(2) Any act by deeds or words which debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being;

Section 10. Other Acts of Neglect, Abuse, Cruelty or Exploitation and Other Conditions Prejudicial to the Child's Development. –

Any person who shall commit any other acts of child abuse, cruelty or exploitation or to be responsible for other conditions prejudicial to the
child's development including those covered by Article 59 of Presidential Decree No. 603, as amended, but not covered by the Revised Penal
Code, as amended, shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period.

No, Manny should not be held liable for child abuse under Section 10(a) in relation to Section 3(b)(2) of
RA 7610.

Under the law, a conviction for child abuse under Section 10(a) in relation to Section 3(b)(2) of RA 7610
requires the presence of intent to debase, degrade, or demean, the intrinsic worth of the child as a
human being.

In this case, Manny’s brother, AJ is being bullied and threatened by Gener with empty words before his
eyes, causing him to lose his mental fortitude and attacked Gener in the spur of the moment. Having an
uncontrollable burst of passion/ emotion, his reason was clouded with anger and lacked that specific
intent to debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being that was
so essential in the crime of child abuse.

Therefore, Manny cannot be held liable for child abuse under Section 10(a) in relation to Section 3(b)(2) of
RA 7610.
(The act of inflicting injuries, however minute they were, is punishable under the RPC, particularly Article
266(1) which defines slight physical injuries; hence, he should be punished under the RPC and not under Section
10(a), Article VI of R.A. No. 7610.23)

(Inflicting injuries, no matter how minor, is punishable under the RPC, particularly Article 266, which defines slight
physical injuries. He should be punished under the RPC rather than Section 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610.)

“Art. 266. Slight physical injuries and maltreatment. – The crime of slight physical injuries shall be punished:

1. By arresto mayor when the offender has inflicted physical injuries which shall incapacitate the offended party for
labor from one (1) day to nine (9) days or shall require medical attendance during the same period.

2. By arresto menor or a fine not exceeding Forty thousand pesos (₱40,000) and censure when the offender has
caused physical injuries which do not prevent the offended party from engaging in his habitual work nor require
medical assistance.

3. By arresto menor in its minimum period or a fine not exceeding Five thousand pesos (₱5,000) when the offender
shall ill-treat another by deed without causing any injury.”
3. Read this Facebook post (“I demand my inalienable right to soup”).
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?
story_fbid=4909975295705651&id=100000796881586&mibextid=Nif5oz

Is that an inalienable right? Or is it a right in the first place?

No, that is not an inalienable right. It's not a right, to begin with. Under the law, a right is a legally
enforceable claim and an inalienable right is a right that you have and that cannot be taken away
from you. In this case, the person does not have the right to demand soup. Therefore, it is not an
inalienable right. You cannot lose what you do not have.

4. What are the restrictions, if any, of Article 8 of the Civil Code of the Philippines?

Article 8 of the Civil Code of the Philippines states that Judicial decisions applying or interpreting
the laws or the Constitution shall form a part of the legal system of the Philippines.

The restrictions of Article 8 concern whether the President is required by the Constitution to
follow the decisions of the Supreme Court or the lower courts. To make it mandatory for the
President, the following elements must be present:

1. The decision must be constitutional;

2. The holding must have been repeated in other cases so it can be considered a doctrine; and
3. The principle laid down must be consistent with other branches of government.

5. What is the difference between an imposable penalty and prescribed penalty for the purpose of
petition for bail?

The "Imposable" penalty is the penalty that will be declared after the trial. The "Prescribed"
penalty is the legal consequence for the crime charged. The prescribed penalty is used to
determine bail.