Lawyerly

GR No. 179700

2009-06-22

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Two informations both dated 21 September 2000 were filed before the RTC of Negros Oriental charging petitioner Quinicot with violation of Sections 16[4] and 15,[5] respectively, of Republic Act No. 6425, otherwise known as The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. The accusatory portions of the informations read: Crim. Case No. 14855 That on or about the 21st day of September, 2000 in the City of Dumaguete, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, not being then authorized by law, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, have and keep in his possession two (2) transparent plastic sachets containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride also known as shabu weighing more or less 5.1 grams.[6]

GR No. 179700

2009-06-22

GWYN QUINICOT Y CURATIVO v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

At around 12:20 p.m., they went to Chin Loong Restaurant and conducted the buy-bust operation. PO2 Germodo was positioned in front of the restaurant, five to ten meters away from PO1 Marchan and petitioner. PO1 Marchan saw petitioner and a woman sitting on a stool in the bar. PO1 Marchan approached petitioner and asked him if he had shabu worth P300.00. Petitioner answered in the affirmative. PO1 Marchan gave the P300.00 marked money, and in return, petitioner gave him a plastic sachet[10] containing a white crystalline substance. When PO1 Marchan executed the pre-arranged signal - touching his hat - PO2 Germodo rushed towards petitioner and PO1 Marchan and identified themselves as police officers. Petitioner was informed he violated the law on selling shabu. PO2 Germodo bodily searched petitioner and recovered two plastic sachets[11] from the brown belt purse of the latter. He likewise recovered from petitioner the marked money, a disposable lighter, and a tooter.[12] The petitioner was brought to the police station. PO1 Marchan issued a receipt[13] for the items recovered from the him.

GR No. 179700

2009-06-22

GWYN QUINICOT Y CURATIVO v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

At around 12:20 p.m., they went to Chin Loong Restaurant and conducted the buy-bust operation. PO2 Germodo was positioned in front of the restaurant, five to ten meters away from PO1 Marchan and petitioner. PO1 Marchan saw petitioner and a woman sitting on a stool in the bar. PO1 Marchan approached petitioner and asked him if he had shabu worth P300.00. Petitioner answered in the affirmative. PO1 Marchan gave the P300.00 marked money, and in return, petitioner gave him a plastic sachet[10] containing a white crystalline substance. When PO1 Marchan executed the pre-arranged signal - touching his hat - PO2 Germodo rushed towards petitioner and PO1 Marchan and identified themselves as police officers. Petitioner was informed he violated the law on selling shabu. PO2 Germodo bodily searched petitioner and recovered two plastic sachets[11] from the brown belt purse of the latter. He likewise recovered from petitioner the marked money, a disposable lighter, and a tooter.[12] The petitioner was brought to the police station. PO1 Marchan issued a receipt[13] for the items recovered from the him.

GR No. 179700

2009-06-22

GWYN QUINICOT Y CURATIVO v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Per request[14] of PSI Tolentino, the three plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance were sent to the Negros Oriental Provincial Crime Laboratory for forensic laboratory examination. P/Insp. Llena conducted the chemical examination on the following: (1) specimen A[15] with a weight of 0.119 gram; (2) specimen B[16] with a weight of 2.1832 grams; and (3) specimen C[17] with a weight of 2.6355 grams. The results as contained in Chemistry Report No. D-146-2000[18] showed that the specimens contained methylamphetamine hydrochloride.

GR No. 179700

2009-06-22

GWYN QUINICOT Y CURATIVO v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Per request[14] of PSI Tolentino, the three plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance were sent to the Negros Oriental Provincial Crime Laboratory for forensic laboratory examination. P/Insp. Llena conducted the chemical examination on the following: (1) specimen A[15] with a weight of 0.119 gram; (2) specimen B[16] with a weight of 2.1832 grams; and (3) specimen C[17] with a weight of 2.6355 grams. The results as contained in Chemistry Report No. D-146-2000[18] showed that the specimens contained methylamphetamine hydrochloride.

GR NO. 151876

2005-06-21

SUSAN GO v. FERNANDO L. DIMAGIBA

PANGANIBAN, J.

SC-AC No. 12-2000, as clarified by SC-AC No. 13-2001,[38] established a rule of preference in imposing the above penalties.[39] When the circumstances of the case clearly indicate good faith or a clear mistake of fact without taint of negligence, the imposition of a fine alone may be considered as the preferred penalty.[40] The determination of the circumstances that warrant the imposition of a fine rests upon the trial judge only.[41] Should the judge deem that imprisonment is appropriate, such penalty may be imposed.[42]

GR NO. 141669

2005-02-28

JAIME DICO v. CA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The essential elements of the offense penalized under Section 1, B.P. Blg. 22 are as follows: (1) the making, drawing and issuance of any check to apply to account or for value; (2) the knowledge of the maker, drawer or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment; and (3) subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment.[27] The prosecution has the burden to prove all the elements of the crime beyond reasonable doubt. Failure to do so will necessarily result in exoneration.

GR No. 149275

2004-09-27

VICKY C. TY v. PEOPLE

TINGA, J.

Thus, Administrative Circular 12-2000 establishes a rule of preference in the application of the penal provisions of B.P. Blg. 22 such that where the circumstances of both the offense and the offender clearly indicate good faith or a clear mistake of fact without taint of negligence, the imposition of a fine alone should be considered as the more appropriate penalty. Needless to say, the determination of whether circumstances warrant the imposition of a fine alone rests solely upon the Judge. Should the judge decide that imprisonment is the more appropriate penalty, Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 ought not be deemed a hindrance. It is therefore understood that: (1) Administrative Circular 12-2000 does not remove imprisonment as an alternative penalty for violations of B.P. 22; (2) the judges concerned may, in the exercise of sound discretion, and taking into consideration the peculiar circumstances of each case, determine whether the imposition of a fine alone would best serve the interests of justice, or whether forbearing to impose imprisonment would depreciate the seriousness of the offense, work violence on the social order, or otherwise be contrary to the imperatives of justice; (3) should only a fine be imposed and the accused unable to pay the fine, there is no legal obstacle to the application of the Revised Penal Code provisions on subsidiary imprisonment.[54]

GR No. 134172

2004-09-20

MIRIAM ARMI JAO YU v. PEOPLE

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

In Felicito Abarquez vs. Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines promulgated on August 7, 2003[4] a case which involves the application of penalties for violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 we did not only modify the amount of the fines imposed by the Court of Appeals in Criminal Cases Nos. D-8137, D-8176 and D-8177, but also imposed "subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency in accordance with Article 39 of the Revised Penal Code" in each case.

GR Nos. 159418-19

2003-12-10

NORMA DE JOYA v. JAIL WARDEN OF BATANGAS CITY

CALLEJO, SR., J.

2) ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 12-2000 AS MODIFIED BY ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 13-2001 DID NOT DELETE THE PENALTY OF IMPRISONMENT IN BP 22 CASES.[8] The OSG cited the ruling of this Court in Abarquez v. Court of Appeals.[9]

	GR No. 179700 2009-06-22	GWYN QUINICOT Y CURATIVO v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Two informations both dated 21 September 2000 were filed before the RTC of Negros Oriental charging petitioner Quinicot with violation of Sections 16[4] and 15,[5] respectively, of Republic Act No. 6425, otherwise known as The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. The accusatory portions of the informations read: Crim. Case No. 14855 That on or about the 21st day of September, 2000 in the City of Dumaguete, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, not being then authorized by law, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, have and keep in his possession two (2) transparent plastic sachets containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride also known as shabu weighing more or less 5.1 grams.[6]
	GR No. 179700 2009-06-22	GWYN QUINICOT Y CURATIVO v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
At around 12:20 p.m., they went to Chin Loong Restaurant and conducted the buy-bust operation. PO2 Germodo was positioned in front of the restaurant, five to ten meters away from PO1 Marchan and petitioner. PO1 Marchan saw petitioner and a woman sitting on a stool in the bar. PO1 Marchan approached petitioner and asked him if he had shabu worth P300.00. Petitioner answered in the affirmative. PO1 Marchan gave the P300.00 marked money, and in return, petitioner gave him a plastic sachet[10] containing a white crystalline substance. When PO1 Marchan executed the pre-arranged signal - touching his hat - PO2 Germodo rushed towards petitioner and PO1 Marchan and identified themselves as police officers. Petitioner was informed he violated the law on selling shabu. PO2 Germodo bodily searched petitioner and recovered two plastic sachets[11] from the brown belt purse of the latter. He likewise recovered from petitioner the marked money, a disposable lighter, and a tooter.[12] The petitioner was brought to the police station. PO1 Marchan issued a receipt[13] for the items recovered from the him.
	GR No. 179700 2009-06-22	GWYN QUINICOT Y CURATIVO v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
At around 12:20 p.m., they went to Chin Loong Restaurant and conducted the buy-bust operation. PO2 Germodo was positioned in front of the restaurant, five to ten meters away from PO1 Marchan and petitioner. PO1 Marchan saw petitioner and a woman sitting on a stool in the bar. PO1 Marchan approached petitioner and asked him if he had shabu worth P300.00. Petitioner answered in the affirmative. PO1 Marchan gave the P300.00 marked money, and in return, petitioner gave him a plastic sachet[10] containing a white crystalline substance. When PO1 Marchan executed the pre-arranged signal - touching his hat - PO2 Germodo rushed towards petitioner and PO1 Marchan and identified themselves as police officers. Petitioner was informed he violated the law on selling shabu. PO2 Germodo bodily searched petitioner and recovered two plastic sachets[11] from the brown belt purse of the latter. He likewise recovered from petitioner the marked money, a disposable lighter, and a tooter.[12] The petitioner was brought to the police station. PO1 Marchan issued a receipt[13] for the items recovered from the him.
	GR No. 179700 2009-06-22	GWYN QUINICOT Y CURATIVO v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Per request[14] of PSI Tolentino, the three plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance were sent to the Negros Oriental Provincial Crime Laboratory for forensic laboratory examination. P/Insp. Llena conducted the chemical examination on the following: (1) specimen A[15] with a weight of 0.119 gram; (2) specimen B[16] with a weight of 2.1832 grams; and (3) specimen C[17] with a weight of 2.6355 grams. The results as contained in Chemistry Report No. D-146-2000[18] showed that the specimens contained methylamphetamine hydrochloride.
	GR No. 179700 2009-06-22	GWYN QUINICOT Y CURATIVO v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Per request[14] of PSI Tolentino, the three plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance were sent to the Negros Oriental Provincial Crime Laboratory for forensic laboratory examination. P/Insp. Llena conducted the chemical examination on the following: (1) specimen A[15] with a weight of 0.119 gram; (2) specimen B[16] with a weight of 2.1832 grams; and (3) specimen C[17] with a weight of 2.6355 grams. The results as contained in Chemistry Report No. D-146-2000[18] showed that the specimens contained methylamphetamine hydrochloride.
	GR NO. 151876 2005-06-21	SUSAN GO v. FERNANDO L. DIMAGIBA PANGANIBAN, J.
SC-AC No. 12-2000, as clarified by SC-AC No. 13-2001,[38] established a rule of preference in imposing the above penalties.[39] When the circumstances of the case clearly indicate good faith or a clear mistake of fact without taint of negligence, the imposition of a fine alone may be considered as the preferred penalty.[40] The determination of the circumstances that warrant the imposition of a fine rests upon the trial judge only.[41] Should the judge deem that imprisonment is appropriate, such penalty may be imposed.[42]
	GR NO. 141669 2005-02-28	JAIME DICO v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The essential elements of the offense penalized under Section 1, B.P. Blg. 22 are as follows: (1) the making, drawing and issuance of any check to apply to account or for value; (2) the knowledge of the maker, drawer or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment; and (3) subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment.[27] The prosecution has the burden to prove all the elements of the crime beyond reasonable doubt. Failure to do so will necessarily result in exoneration.
	GR No. 149275 2004-09-27	VICKY C. TY v. PEOPLE TINGA, J.
Thus, Administrative Circular 12-2000 establishes a rule of preference in the application of the penal provisions of B.P. Blg. 22 such that where the circumstances of both the offense and the offender clearly indicate good faith or a clear mistake of fact without taint of negligence, the imposition of a fine alone should be considered as the more appropriate penalty. Needless to say, the determination of whether circumstances warrant the imposition of a fine alone rests solely upon the Judge. Should the judge decide that imprisonment is the more appropriate penalty, Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 ought not be deemed a hindrance. It is therefore understood that: (1) Administrative Circular 12-2000 does not remove imprisonment as an alternative penalty for violations of B.P. 22; (2) the judges concerned may, in the exercise of sound discretion, and taking into consideration the peculiar circumstances of each case, determine whether the imposition of a fine alone would best serve the interests of justice, or whether forbearing to impose imprisonment would depreciate the seriousness of the offense, work violence on the social order, or otherwise be contrary to the imperatives of justice; (3) should only a fine be imposed and the accused unable to pay the fine, there is no legal obstacle to the application of the Revised Penal Code provisions on subsidiary imprisonment.[54]
	GR No. 134172 2004-09-20	MIRIAM ARMI JAO YU v. PEOPLE SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In Felicito Abarquez vs. Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines promulgated on August 7, 2003[4] a case which involves the application of penalties for violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 we did not only modify the amount of the fines imposed by the Court of Appeals in Criminal Cases Nos. D-8137, D-8176 and D-8177, but also imposed "subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency in accordance with Article 39 of the Revised Penal Code" in each case.
	GR Nos. 159418-19 2003-12-10	NORMA DE JOYA v. JAIL WARDEN OF BATANGAS CITY CALLEJO, SR., J.
2) ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 12-2000 AS MODIFIED BY ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 13-2001 DID NOT DELETE THE PENALTY OF IMPRISONMENT IN BP 22 CASES.[8] The OSG cited the ruling of this Court in Abarquez v. Court of Appeals.[9]

FELICITO ABARQUEZ v. CA