This case has been cited 18 times or more.
|
2014-01-15 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| As to the charge of illegal possession of regulated drugs in Criminal Case No. 98-164175, the Court of Appeals properly invoked our ruling in People v. Tira[64] in determining the proper imposable penalty. Indeed, we held in Tira that: Under Section 16, Article III of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended, the imposable penalty of possession of a regulated drug, less than 200 grams, in this case, shabu, is prision correccional to reclusion perpetua. Based on the quantity of the regulated drug subject of the offense, the imposable penalty shall be as follows: | |||||
|
2013-03-06 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| As regards appellant's unauthorized possession of 2.85 grams of shabu in Criminal Case No. P-3163, a quantity which is less than the ceiling of 200 grams provided in Section 20 of Article IV of RA 6425 as amended by RA 7659, the imposable penalty is prision correccional as provided in the same law.[26] Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and there being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance that attended the commission of the crime, the maximum period is prision correccional in its medium period which has a duration of two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and two (2) months. The minimum period is within the range of the penalty next lower in degree which is arresto mayor, the duration of which is one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months. Hence, we likewise affirm the penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as maximum, imposed upon the appellant for the said crime. We also affirm the CA's deletion of the fine of P100,000.00 imposed by the RTC since the second paragraph of Section 20 of RA 6425, as amended, provides only for the penalty of imprisonment. | |||||
|
2012-01-30 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In People v. Tira,[27] this Court explained the concept of possession of regulated drugs, to wit: This crime is mala prohibita, and, as such, criminal intent is not an essential element. However, the prosecution must prove that the accused had the intent to possess (animus posidendi) the drugs. 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. On the other hand, constructive possession 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. Exclusive possession or control is not necessary. The accused cannot avoid conviction if his right to exercise control and dominion over the place where the contraband is located, is shared with another.[28] | |||||
|
2010-07-05 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Thus, in People v. Tira,[11] we classified the penalties and graduated the same by degree where the quantity of the shabu or methylamphetamine hydrochloride involved is less than 200 grams, viz: Under Section 16, Article III of RA 6425, as amended, the imposable penalty of possession of a regulated drug, less than 200 grams, in this case, shabu, is prision correccional to reclusion perpetua. Based on the quantity of the regulated drug subject of the offense, the imposable penalty shall be as follows: | |||||
|
2009-12-04 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| x x x This crime is mala prohibita, and, as such, criminal intent is not an essential element. However, the prosecution must prove that the accused had the intent to possess (animus posidendi) the drugs. 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. On the other hand, constructive possession 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. Exclusive possession or control is not necessary. The accused cannot avoid conviction if his right to exercise control and dominion over the place where the contraband is located, is shared with another.[20] (Emphasis ours.) | |||||
|
2009-10-02 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| May we request, your Honor, that it be marked in evidence as Exhibit H and the markings made by the witness on the same be marked as Exhibit H-1.[66] Actual possession exists when the drug is in the immediate physical possession or control of the accused. In this case, the drugs were found inside his clothing.[67] No evidence was ever adduced showing that the accused-appellant had authority to possess these regulated drugs. | |||||
|
2009-08-24 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Constructive possession can also be inferred from the circumstancial evidence presented. The discussion found in People v. Tira[11] clearly explains the concept: x x x This crime is mala prohibita, and as such, criminal intent is not an essential element. However, the prosecution must prove that the accused had the intent to possess (animus possidendi) the drugs. 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. On the other hand, constructive possession 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. Exclusive possession or control is not necessary. The accused cannot avoid conviction if his right to exercise control and dominion over the place where the contraband is located, is shared with another. | |||||
|
2009-06-22 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Both lower courts likewise found that petitioner possessed 4.8187 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride and sentenced petitioner to an indeterminate penalty of six months and one day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four years and two months of prision correccional, as maximum. As the Court ruled in People v. Tira[52]:Under Section 16, Article III of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended, the imposable penalty of possession of a regulated drug, less than 200 grams, in this case, shabu, is prision correccional to reclusion perpetua. Based on the quantity of the regulated drug subject of the offense, the imposable penalty shall be as follows: | |||||
|
2008-12-08 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| The essential elements of the crime of illegal possession of regulated drugs are the following: 1) the actual possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely or consciously possessed the said drug.[8] | |||||
|
2008-11-20 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In People v. Tira,[11] we sustained the conviction of the accused husband and wife for illegal possession of dangerous drugs. Their residence was searched and their bed was found to be concealing illegal drugs underneath. We held that the wife cannot feign ignorance of the drugs' existence as she had full access to the room, including the space under the bed. | |||||
|
2007-07-06 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| More importantly, the prosecution must prove that the accused had the intent to possess the drug. 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. On the other hand, constructive possession 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. Exclusive possession or control is not necessary. The fact of possession may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence and any reasonable inference drawn therefrom. However, the prosecution must prove that the accused had knowledge of the existence and presence of the drug in the place under his control and dominion, as well as the character of the drug. Since knowledge by the accused of the existence and character of the drug in the place where he exercises dominion and control is an internal act, the same may be presumed from the fact that the dangerous drug is in the house or place over which the accused has control or dominion, or within such premises in the absence of any satisfactory explanation.[26] | |||||
|
2007-02-23 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| In People v. Tira,[18] we held:Under Section 16 [Possession or Used of Regulated Drugs], Article III of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended, the imposable penalty of possession of a regulated drug, less than 200 grams, in this case, shabu, is prision correccional to reclusion perpetua. Based on the quantity of the regulated drug subject of the offense, the imposable penalty shall be as follows: QUANTITY IMPOSABLE PENALTY Less than one (1) gram to 49.25 grams prision correccional 49.26 grams to 98.50 grams | |||||
|
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] | |||||
|
2006-09-27 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The Information is defective because it charges two crimes. The appellants should have filed a motion to quash the Information under Section 3, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Court before their arraignment. They failed to do so. Hence, under Rule 120, Section 3 of the said rule, the appellants may be convicted of the crimes charged.[20] Just like Tira, this case involves illegal possession of both shabu and marijuana. Hence, it was only proper for the prosecution to file two separate Informations since there were two distinct and separate crimes involved. This is in accordance with the rule that a complaint or information must charge only one offense, except when the law prescribes a single punishment for various offenses.[21] | |||||
|
2006-09-12 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The essential elements of the crime of illegal possession of regulated drugs are the following: (a) the accused is found in possession of a regulated drug; (b) the person is not authorized by law or by duly constituted authorities; and (c) the accused has knowledge that the said drug is a regulated drug.[31] | |||||
|
2004-09-30 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In People vs. Tira,[31] we explained the concept of possession of regulated drugs, to wit:This crime is mala prohibita, and as such, criminal intent is not an essential element. However, the prosecution must prove that the accused had the intent to possess (animus posidendi) the drugs. 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. On the other hand, constructive possession 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. Exclusive possession or control is not necessary. The accused cannot avoid conviction if his right to exercise control and dominion over the place where the contraband is located, is shared with another. | |||||
|
2004-09-29 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Moreover, it is not disputed that Huang Zhen Hua had only been in the country for barely four (4) days at the time when he was arrested. The prosecution was unable to show that in these four (4) days Huang Zhen Hua committed acts which showed that he was in cahoots with the drug syndicate Henry Lau and Peter Chan. It was not even shown that he was together with Henry Lau and Peter Chan on any occasion. As for Huang Zhen Hua, therefore, there is no direct evidence of any culpability. Nor is there any circumstantial evidence from which any culpability may be inferred.[52] We agree with the OSG. In a case of recent vintage, this Court, in People vs. Tira,[53] ruminated and expostulated on the juridical concept of "possession" under Section 16, Article III of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended, and the evidence necessary to prove the said crime, thus: The essential elements of the crime of possession of regulated drugs are the following: (a) the accused is found in possession of a regulated drug; (b) the person is not authorized by law or by duly constituted authorities; and, (c) the accused has knowledge that the said drug is a regulated drug. This crime is mala prohibita, and, as such, criminal intent is not an essential element. However, the prosecution must prove that the accused had the intent to possess (animus posidende) the drugs. 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. On the other hand, constructive possession exits 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. Exclusive possession or control is not necessary. The accused cannot avoid conviction if his right to exercise control and dominion over the place where the contraband is located, is shared with another. | |||||
|
2004-06-09 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| In People vs. Amadeo Tira,[18] we held: "Under Section 15, Article III in relation to the second paragraph of Sections 20 and 21 of Article IV of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by Section 17 of R.A. No. 7659, the imposable penalty of illegal sale of a regulated drug (shabu), less than 200 grams, as in this case, is prision correccional to reclusion perpetua. Based on the quantity of the regulated drug subject of the offense, the imposable penalty shall be as follows: QUANTITY IMPOSABLE PENALTY | |||||