Criminal Law,  Legally Yours

Del Castillo Case Doctrines (Criminal Law – Special Penal Laws)

Del Castillo Case Doctrines

Summaries of case doctrines penned by Justice Del Castillo.

Criminal Law Special Penal Laws

Bustillo, et. al. v. People
G.R. No. 160718, May 12, 2010

The presumption of regularity of official acts is available in prosecution for violations of RA 3019. Such presumption may be rebutted by affirmative evidence of irregularity or failure to perform a duty.

Chua v. People
G.R. No. 196853, July 13, 2015

For the presumption under BP 22 that the issuer of the check knew of the insufficiency of the funds, it must be shown that he or she received a notice of dishonor and, within five (5) banking days thereafter, failed to satisfy the amount of the check or make arrangement for its payment.

People v. Alberto y Nieva
G.R. No. 179717, February 5, 2010

For offenses involving the illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the following elements must concur:
1) the identities of the buyer and seller, the object, and consideration; and
2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereof.

People v. Araza y Sagun
G.R. No. 190623, November 17, 2014

A pre-coordination report is not an essential procedural requisite for prosecution under RA 9165 when an accused is apprehended in flagrante delicto.

People v. Bis y Avellaneda
G.R. No. 191360, March 10, 2014

Non-compliance with the chain of custody rule is not fatal to the prosecution as long as the identity of the drug seized has been properly accounted for.

People v. Bordadero y Armamento
G.R. No. 179710, June 29, 2010

Section 86 of RA 9165 is explicit only in saying that the PDEA shall be the “lead agency” in the investigations and prosecutions of drug related cases. Other law enforcement bodies still possess authority to perform similar functions as the PDEA as long as illegal drug cases will eventually be transferred to the latter. Thus, police officers possess authority to conduct buy-bust operations under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

People v. Butial
G.R. No. 192785, February 4, 2015

The absence of markings on the seized drugs creates an uncertainty to the identity of the corpus delicti. The lack of certainty is a crucial element of the crime which warrants the reversal of the judgment of conviction.

People v. Dela Cruz y Sebastian
G.R. No. 193670, December 3, 2014

In a prosecution for violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, non-mention of the place where the markings were made does not constitute a violation of the chain of custody rule.

People v. Fundales, Jr.
G.R. No. 184606, September 5, 2012

The non-presentation of the forensic chemist as a witness in a prosecution under RA 9165 is an insufficient cause for acquittal. What is important is that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized drugs are properly reserved.

People v. Gabuya y Adlawan
G.R. No. 195245, February 16, 2015

Coordination of the buy-bust operation with the PDEA is not an indispensable element of the crimes of illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs.

People v. Gandawali y Gapas and Pagalad y Anas
G.R. No. 193385, December 1, 2014

In the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, neither law nor jurisprudence requires the presentation of any of the money used in a buy-bust operation to convict the accused.

People v. Mallari
G.R. No. 179041, April 1, 2013

To prove the special complex crime of carnapping with homicide, there must be proof not only of the essential elements of carnapping but also that it was the original criminal design of the culprit and the killing was perpetrated “in the course of the commission of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof”.

People v. Morales
G.R. No. 172873, March 19, 2010

Failure to comply with the mandate of Section 21 of RA 9165 providing for the procedure to be followed in the custody and handling of seized dangerous drugs implies a concomitant failure on the part of the prosecution to establish the identity of the corpus delicti.

People v. Noque y Gomez
G.R. No. 175319, January 15, 2010

The accused may be convicted of the sale and possession of shabu under RA 9165 even if what was proven was the sale and possession of ephedrine, a raw material of shabu. The crime of illegal sale and possession of metamphetamine necessarily includes the illegal sale and possession of the regulated drug of ephedrine.

People v. Robelo
G.R. No. 184181, November 26, 2012

Passive complicity to the sale of illegal drugs indicates conspiracy and silence during the negotiation is immaterial. Conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime.

People v. Salvador and Parcon
G.R. No. 190621, February 10, 2014

The consummation of the illegal sale of dangerous drugs happens from the moment of the exchange of the money and the drugs between the buyer and the seller.

People v. Suan y Jolongon
G.R. No. 184546, February 22, 2010

A break in the chain of custody of the illegal drugs seized is a ground for the acquittal of the accused.

Soriano v. People
G.R. No. 162336, February 1, 2010

A bank officer violated the Directors, Officers, Stockholders, Related Interests (DOSRI) Law when he acquired bank funds for his personal benefit even if such acquisition was facilitated by a fraudulent loan application. The prohibition in Section 83 of the DOSRI Law is given a broad interpretation to curb circumvention of the law through the use of dummies.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

%d bloggers like this: