Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

WAVE ONE- RA 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) CASES AND

JURISPRUDENCE
(Note: Due to persistent public demand, I'm posting topics about drugs law. I am
fervently hoping that you will read everything in its entirety including the SC
citations)
A.NAME OF THE ACCUSED DID NOT APPEAR IN THE SEARCH WARRANT
Where the search warrant is issued for the search of specifically described premises
only and not for the search of a person, the FAILURE TO NAME THE OWNER OR
OCCUPANT of such property in the affidavit and the search warrant itself, DOES NOT
INVALIDATE the warrant. And where the NAME of the OWNER of the premises sought
to be searched is INCORRECTLY INSERTED in the search warrant, it is NOT FATAL
DEFECT IF AND ONLY IF the LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PREMISES to be searched is
otherwise CORRECT so that no discretion is left to the officer making the search as
to the place to be searched. (Andy Quelnan v. People, GR No. 166061, July 6, 2007
citing Uy vs. BIR, 397 Phil 892, 908-909)
B. ABSENCE OF THE ACCUSED DURING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A SEARCH
WARRANT
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. Denial, like alibi has no stand over
the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty on the part of the
police officers. (People vs. Dexter Torres, GR No. 170837, September 12, 2006)
C. SHABU WAS NOT FOUND ON THE PERSON OF THE ACCUSED BUT IN A BEDROOM
OF THE PREMISES SUBJECT OF A SEARCH WARRANT
In cases of drugs conviction, exclusive possession or control is NOT necessary (Andy
Quelnan v. People, GR No. 166061, July 6, 2007)
D.ROOM WHERE THE DRUGS WERE FOUND WAS NOT UNDER THE EXCLUSIVE
CONTROL OF THE ACCUSED
Conviction need not be predicated upon exclusive possession and a showing of nonexclusive possession would not acquit the accused. Since knowledge by the accused
where he exercises dominion and control is an internal act, the same may be
presumed from the fact that the dangerous drugs is in the house or place over
which the accused has control or dominion, or within such premises in the absence
of satisfactory explanation 9People v. Amadeo Tira and Connie Tira, GR. No. 139615,
May 28, 2004)
E. LACK OF PRIOR SURVEILLANCE, AGREEMENT ABOUT BUY-BUST MONEY AND
FAILURE TO TALK ABOUT A PRE-ARRANGED SIGNAL
The absence of a prior surveillance or test-buy does not affect the legality of the
buy-bust operation. There is no textbook method of conducting buy-bust operations.

The court has left to the discretion of police authorities the selection of elective
means to apprehend drug dealers. A PRIOR SURVEILLANCE is not necessary
especially where the police operatives are accompanied by their informants during
the entrapment.Flexibility is a trait of good police work.
It is not required that all members of the buy-bust team know HOW the marked
money is to be produced and marked as long as their respective roles in the
operation was duly carried out.
The LACK OF PRE-ARRANGED SIGNAL is not fatal to the cause of the prosecution.
The employment of a pre-arranged signal, or the lack of it, is not indispensable in a
buy-bust operation. What is material to the prosecution for ILLEGAL SALE of
dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place,
coupled with the presentation of the plastic sachet of shabu as the corpus delicti.
(People v. Bernardo F. Nicolas, GR No. 170234, February 8, 2007)
F. ABSENCE OF BOTH AN ARREST AND SEARCH WARRANT (ESP DURING
CHECKPOINT)
The requirement that a judicial warrant MUST be obtained prior to the carrying out
of a search and seizure is NOT absolute. An acceptable exception thereof is the
WARRANTLESS SEARCH AND SEIZURE OF MOVING VEHICLES since it is very
impractical to secure a warrant to effect the same. GR: police officers are limited to
routine checks only. EXCEPTION: they are allowed to intrude IF UPON PROBABLE
CAUSE, the believe that an automobile contains item, article or object, which by law
is subject to seizure and destruction. (People v. Agpanga Libnao and Rosita Nunga,
GR No. 136860, January 20, 2003)
G. WHEN ACCUSED TOLD YOU: NO DRUG PUSHER WOULD SELL TO A STRANGER
ON A BUSY STREET IN BROAD DAYLIGHT
If pushers peddle drugs only to persons known to them, then drug abuse would
certainly not be as rampant as it is today and would not pose a serious threat to
society. Indeed, drug pushers sell their prohibited articles to any prospective
customer, be he a stranger or not, in private as well as in public places, even during
daytime. Hence, what matters is not the existing familiarity between the buyer and
the seller or the time and venue of the sale, but the fact of agreement and the acts
constituting sale and delivery of the prohibited drugs. (People v. Agpanga Libnao
and Rosita Nunga, GR No. 136860, January 20, 2003)