This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2012-01-18 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| In a prosecution for possession of illegal substances, proof of animus possidendi on the part of the accused is indispensable. But animus possidendi is a state of mind, and is thus to be determined on a case-to-case basis by taking into consideration the prior and contemporaneous acts of the accused, as well as the surrounding circumstances. It may and must be inferred usually from the attendant events in each particular case.[23] Upon the State's presenting to the trial court of the facts and circumstances from which to infer the existence of animus possidendi, it becomes incumbent upon the Defense to rebut the inference with evidence that the accused did not exercise power and control of the illicit thing in question, and did not intend to do so. For that purpose, a mere unfounded assertion of the accused that he did not know that he had possession of the illegal drug is insufficient,[24] and animus possidendi is then presumed to exist on his part because he was thereby shown to have performed an act that the law prohibited and punished.[25] | |||||
|
2008-04-10 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Knowledge refers to a mental state of awareness of a fact. Since courts cannot penetrate the mind of an accused and thereafter state its perceptions with certainty, resort to other evidence is necessary. Animus possidendi, as a state of mind, may be determined on a case-to-case basis by taking into consideration the prior or contemporaneous acts of the accused, as well as the surrounding circumstances. Its existence may and usually must be inferred from the attendant events in each particular case.[35] | |||||
|
2006-10-27 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Section 16, Article III of R.A. No. 6425, as amended by R.A. No. 7659 reads: SEC. 16. Possession or Use of Regulated Drugs. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person who shall possess or use any regulated drug without the corresponding license or prescription, subject to the provisions of Section 20 hereof. The elements of the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs are as follows: (a) the accused was in possession of the regulated drugs; (b) the accused was fully and consciously aware of being in possession of the regulated drug; and (c) the accused had no legal authority to possess the regulated drug.[63] Possession may be actual or constructive. In order to establish constructive possession, the People must prove that petitioner had dominion or control on either the substance or the premises where found.[64] The State must prove adequate nexus between the accused and the prohibited substance.[65] Possession of dangerous drugs constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or aminus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of any satisfactory explanation of such possession. The burden of evidence is shifted to petitioner to explain the absence of aminus possidendi.[66] | |||||
|
2003-09-26 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Suddenly, a man who identified himself as a police officer approached him, pointing a .38 caliber revolver.[38] The man told him not to run.[39] Tudtud raised his arms and asked, "Sir, what is this about?"[40] The man answered that he would like to inspect the plastic bag Tudtud was carrying, and instructed Tudtud to open the bag, which revealed several pairs of Levi's pants.[41] | |||||
|
2003-01-20 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Anent the third element, we have held that to warrant conviction, possession of illegal drugs must be with knowledge of the accused or that animus possidendi existed together with the possession or control of said articles.[96] Nonetheless, this dictum must be read in consonance with our ruling that possession of a prohibited drug per se constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused absent a satisfactory explanation of such possession.[97] In effect, the onus probandi is shifted to accused to explain the absence of knowledge or animus possidendi[98] in this situation. | |||||