This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2015-03-23 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The RTC sentenced petitioner to an imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to six (6) years and eight (8) months, as maximum, plus fine in the amount of P30,000.00. The CA upheld the RTC. Under PD 1866, as amended by RA 8294, the penalty for illegal possession of firearms classified as high powered, like cal. 45, is prision mayor minimum and a fine of P30,000.00. Applying Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code, the maximum period of the imposable penalty cannot exceed prision mayor minimum in its medium period, there being no mitigating or aggravating circumstance, i.e., six (6) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to seven (7) years and four (4) months. The minimum period, as provided in the Indeterminate Sentence Law, shall be within the range of prision correccional in its maximum period, i.e., four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day to six (6) years, the penalty next lower in degree to prision mayor minimum.[17] Thus, the minimum penalty imposable must be modified. Albeit, PD 1866, as amended by RA 8294, is a malum prohibitum and that the Revised Penal Code is generally not applicable, it has been held that when a special law, which is a malum prohibitum, adopts the nomenclature of the penalties in the Revised Penal Code, the latter law shall apply.[18] | |||||
|
2013-01-09 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| The evidence on record clearly established that appellant Chua was in possession of the plastic bags containing prohibited drugs without the requisite authority. Applying Section 3(j), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court,[11] a disputable presumption arises that she is the owner of the bag and its contents. It may be rebutted by contrary proof that the accused did not in fact exercise power and control over the thing in question, and did not intend to do so. The burden of evidence is thus shifted to the possessor to explain absence of animus possidendi.[12] Here, Chua failed to present evidence to rebut the presumption. She claims that she was a victim of frame-up and extortion by the narcotics agents of the NBI. This defense is viewed with disfavor for it can be easily concocted.[13] The defense of frame- up, often imputed to police officers, requires strong proof when offered as a defense, because of the presumption that public officers acted in the regular performance of their official duties.[14] | |||||
|
2008-04-10 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Appellant, in the main, asserts that he did not freely and consciously possess marijuana.[33] In criminal cases involving prohibited drugs, there can be no conviction unless the prosecution shows that the accused knowingly possessed the prohibited articles in his person, or that animus possidendi is shown to be present together with his possession or control of such article. Animus possidendi is only prima facie. It is subject to contrary proof and may be rebutted by evidence that the accused did not in fact exercise power and control over the thing in question, and did not intend to do so. The burden of evidence is thus shifted to the possessor to explain absence of animus possidendi.[34] | |||||
|
2007-12-19 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It is settled that in determining probable cause, a judge is duty-bound to personally examine under oath the complainant and the witnesses he may present. Emphasis must be laid on the fact that the oath required must refer to "the truth of the facts within the personal knowledge of the petitioner or his witnesses, because the purpose thereof is to convince the committing magistrate, not the individual making the affidavit and seeking the issuance of the warrant, of the existence of probable cause."[21] Search warrants are not issued on loose, vague or doubtful basis of fact, or on mere suspicion or belief.[22] | |||||
|
2006-09-12 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The fact that appellant was not in his residence when it was searched nor caught in flagrante delicto possessing the illicit drugs and paraphernalia does not dent the case of the prosecution. As a matter of law, when prohibited and regulated drugs are found in a house or other building belonging to and occupied by a particular person, the presumption arises that such person is in possession of such drugs in violation of law, and the fact of finding the same is sufficient to convict. Otherwise stated, the finding of the illicit drugs and paraphernalia in the house owned by the appellant raised the presumption of knowledge and, standing alone, was sufficient to convict.[33] | |||||
|
2006-05-04 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In determining probable cause in the issuance of a search warrant, the oath required must refer to the truth of the facts within the personal knowledge of the applicant or his witnesses, because the purpose thereof is to convince the committing magistrate, not the individual making the affidavit and seeking the issuance of the warrant, of the existence of probable cause.[52] | |||||