Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. TIU WON CHUA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 175319 2010-01-15	PEOPLE v. JOSELITO NOQUE Y GOMEZ DEL CASTILLO, J.
The prosecution was also successful in proving that appellant violated Section 16, Article III of RA 6425. It adduced evidence that established the presence of the elements of illegal possession of a dangerous drug. It showed that (1) the appellant was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug, (2) such possession is not authorized by law, and (3) the appellant was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug.[11]
	GR No. 180693 2009-09-04	BONIFACIO DOLERA Y TEJADA v. PEOPLE CARPIO MORALES, J.
For a prosecution for illegal possession of a dangerous drug to prosper, it must be shown that (a) the accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug; (b) such possession is not authorized by law; and (c) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug.[20]
	GR NO. 168773 2006-10-27	ELIZA ABUAN v. PEOPLE 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]
	GR No. 149462 2004-03-29	PEOPLE v. PRISCILLA DEL NORTE PUNO, J.
The Constitution requires search warrants to particularly describe not only the place to be searched, but also the persons to be arrested. We have ruled in rare instances that mistakes in the name of the person subject of the search warrant do not invalidate the warrant, provided the place to be searched is properly described. In People v. Tiu Won Chua,[23] we upheld the validity of the search warrant despite the mistake in the name of the persons to be searched. In the cited case, the authorities conducted surveillance and a test-buy operation before obtaining the search warrant and subsequently implementing it. They had personal knowledge of the identity of the persons and the place to be searched although they did not specifically know the names of the accused.