This case has been cited 3 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] | |||||
|
2010-01-22 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| Second. P.D. 957 has been enacted to regulate for the public good the sale of subdivision lots and condominiums. Its Section 5 prohibits such sale without the prior issuance of an HLURB license[17] and punishes those who engage in such selling.[18] The crime is regarded as malum prohibitum since P.D. 957 is a special law designed to protect the welfare of society and ensure the carrying on of the purposes of civil life.[19] It is the commission of that act as defined by law, not its character or effect that determines whether or not its provision has been violated. Malice or criminal intent is immaterial in such crime.[20] In crimes that are mala prohibita, the forbidden acts might not be inherently immoral. Still they are punished because the law says they are forbidden. With these crimes, the sole issue is whether the law has been violated.[21] | |||||
|
2007-04-04 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The Court notes that respondents initiated two separate criminal actions, one for theft of electricity, Inv. Sheet No. 593 July/1988, and the other, for Violation of P.D. 401, as amended by B.P. Blg. 876, I.S. No. 92-4590. It must be stressed that theft of electricity is a felony defined and penalized under the Revised Penal Code, while Violation of P.D. 401, as amended by B.P. Blg. 876, is an offense punished by a special law. What generally makes the former a felony is criminal intent (dolo) or negligence (culpa); what makes the latter a crime is the special law enacting it.[126] In addition, the elements of the two (2) offenses are different from one another. In theft, the elements are: (1) intent to gain; (2) unlawful taking; (3) personal property belonging to another; (4) and absence of violence or intimidation against persons or force upon things.[127] On the other hand, the crime of Violation of P.D. 401, as amended by B.P. Blg. 876, is mala prohibita. The criminal act is not inherently immoral but becomes punishable only because the law says it is forbidden. With these crimes, the sole issue is whether the law has been violated. Criminal intent is not necessary.[128] | |||||