PEOPLE vs. MORILLA

G.R. No. 189883

February 5, 2014

FACTS:

During a checkpoint, Mayor Mitra, Willie Yang and Ruel Dequilla were caught illegally transporting methamphetamine hydrochloride by means of two (2) motor vehicles, namely a Starex van with commemorative plate to read "Mayor" and a municipal ambulance. 

During the trial, Mayor Mitra argued that he was without any knowledge of the contents of the sacks and explained that he only accommodated the request of a certain Ben Tan because the latter bought his fishing boat. Likewise, Morilla insisted that he thought what he was transporting were wooden tiles and electronic spare parts together with Dequilla. The other passenger of the ambulance, Yang, in his defense, did not bother to inquire about the contents of the vehicle as he was merely an accommodated passenger of the ambulance.

ISSUES: 

1) Whether or not intent or knowledge is material in determining the culpability of an accused in drug cases (NO)

2) Whether or not the finding of conspiracy is correct (YES)

HELD:

1) NO, intent or knowledge is not material in determining the culpability of an accused in drug cases.

The very act of transporting methamphetamine hydrochloride is malum prohibitum since it is punished as an offense under a special law. Morilla and Mayor Mitra were caught in flagrante delicto in the act of transporting the dangerous drugs on board their vehicles. "Transport" as used under the Dangerous Drugs Act means "to carry or convey from one place to another." It was well established during trial that Morilla was driving the ambulance following the lead of Mayor Mitra, who was driving a Starex van going to Manila. The fact of transportation of the sacks containing dangerous drugs need not be accompanied by proof of criminal intent, motive or knowledge.

2) YES, the finding of conspiracy is correct.

The finding of conspiracy by both courts is correct. A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. To determine conspiracy, there must be a common design to commit a felony.

Morilla’s argument that the mere act of driving the ambulance on the date he was apprehended is not sufficient to prove that he was part of a syndicated group involved in the illegal transportation of dangerous drugs is misplaced. 

In conspiracy, it need not be shown that the parties actually came together and agreed in express terms to enter into and pursue a common design. The assent of the minds may be and, from the secrecy of the crime, usually inferred from proof of facts and circumstances which, taken together, indicate that they are parts of some complete whole. In this case, the totality of the factual circumstances leads to a conclusion that Morilla conspired with Mayor Mitra in a common desire to transport the dangerous drugs. Both vehicles loaded with several sacks of dangerous drugs, were on convoy from Quezon to Manila. If indeed he was not involved in conspiracy with Mayor Mitra, he would not have told the police officers that he was with the mayor.

*The above case digest is only a guide. I highly recommend that you read the FULL TEXT.

DELA CRUZ vs. PEOPLE

G.R. No. 200748

July 23, 2014

FACTS:

Complainants alleged that a certain Ariel Escobedo was picked up by several unknown male persons believed to be police officers for allegedly selling drugs. Complainants were instructed to proceed to the Gorordo Police Station. They met “James” at the Police Station, who demanded from them P100,000.00 which was later lowered to P40,000.00, in exchange for the release of Ariel. 

The accused was nabbed after an entrapment operation was conducted. The accused was later brought to the forensic laboratory where he was required to submit his urine for drug testing. The test yielded a positive result for presence of dangerous drugs.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the drug test conducted upon the petitioner is legal. (NO)

HELD:

The drug test in Section 15 does not cover persons apprehended or arrested for any unlawful act, but only for unlawful acts listed under Article II of the law.

The drug test was in violation of the petitioner’s right to privacy and right against self-incrimination. It is incontrovertible that petitioner refused to have his urine extracted and tested for drugs. 

*The above case digest is only a guide. I highly recommend that you read the FULL TEXT.

PEOPLE vs. ENUMERABLE

G.R. No. 207993
January 29, 2015


FACTS:

A buy-bust operation was conducted. Using two (2) pieces of marked P500.00 bills and boodle money to make the appearance of about P24,000.00, the police asset who posed as a buyer transacted with the alias Gerry upon his arrival at the gas station. After the exchange of the marked money and the three (3) plastic sachets of shabu placed in a black plastic box, alias Gerry was placed under arrest. He was later identified as Gerardo Enumerable y de Villa. The marked money was recovered from his possession by PO3 Villas who also took custody of the specimen shabu which he marked EMV 1 to EMV 3. The three (3) sachets of shabu were turned over to the Batangas Provincial Crime Laboratory, pursuant to the request for laboratory examination of P/Supt. Fausto Manzanilla, Jr., Chief of Police, Batangas City PNP on May 27, 2004 at 5:25 p.m. However, that Crime laboratory indorsed the request with the specimens on June 4, 2004 at 2:30 p.m. to the Regional Crime Laboratory in Calamba City. 

ISSUE:

Whether or not the prosecution established the identity and integrity of the confiscated illegal drug (NO)

HELD:

Necessarily,  the  prosecution  must  establish  that  the  substance  seized  from  the  accused  is  the  same substance  offered  in  court  as  exhibit.  In  this  regard,  the  prosecution  must  sufficiently  prove  the  unbroken chain of custody of the confiscated illegal drug.

It  is  settled  that  in  prosecutions  for  illegal  sale  of  dangerous  drug,  not  only  must  the  essential  elements  of the  offense  be  proved  beyond  reasonable  doubt,  but  likewise  the  identity  of  the  prohibited  drug.  The dangerous  drug  itself  constitutes  the  corpus  delicti  of  the  offense  and  the  fact  of  its  existence  is  vital  to  a judgment of conviction.

In  this  case,  there  was  a  glaring  gap  in  the  custody  of  the  illegal  drug  since  the  prosecution  failed  to sufficiently  establish  who  had  custody  of  the  illegal  drug  from  the  moment  it  was  allegedly  transmitted  to the  Batangas  Provincial  Crime  Laboratory  on  27  May  2004  until  it  was  allegedly  delivered  to  the Regional  Crime  Laboratory  on  4  June  2004.  There  was  no  evidence  presented  how  the  confiscated sachets  of  shabu  were  stored,  preserved  or  labeled  nor  who  had  custody  prior  to  their  delivery  to  the Regional  Crime  Laboratory  and  their  subsequent  presentation  before  the  trial  court.  This  is  evident  from the  testimony  of  PO3  Villas,  who  stated  he  had  no  knowledge  on  who  had  custody  of  the  sachets  of shabu from 27 May 2004 until 4 June 2004.

While  appellant  admitted  during  the  pre-trial  the  authenticity  and  due  execution  of  the  Chemistry  Report, prepared  by  Police  Inspector  and  Forensic  Chemist  Donna  Villa  P.  Huelgas,  this  admission  merely affirms  the  existence  of  the  specimen  and  the  request  for  laboratory  examination  and  the  results  thereof. Appellant’s  admission  does  not  relate  to  the  issue  of  chain  of  custody.

*The above case digest is only a guide. I highly recommend that you read the FULL TEXT.