Persons liable
Any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall make or issue a prescription or any other writing purporting to be a prescription for any dangerous drug.
Additional penalty imposed if any of the acts punishable under this Act is committed by an alien
After service of sentence, he shall be deported immediately without further proceedings.
Accessory penalties imposed
Civil interdiction, suspension of political rights such as the right to vote and be voted for.
Aggravating circumstances which may be considered in prosecuting cases of Dangerous Drugs
1. If the importation or bringing into the Philippines of any dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursor and essential chemicals was done through the use of diplomatic passport, diplomatic facilities or any other means involving his/her official status intended to facilitate the unlawful entry of the same (Sec. 4, R.A. 9165);
2. The sale trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution or transportation of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical transpired within 100 meters from the School (Sec. 5, R.A. 9165);
3. The drug pusher use minors or mentally incapacitated individuals as runners, couriers and messenger, or in any other capacity directly connected to the dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical trade (Sec. 5, R.A. 9165);
4. The victim of the offense is a minor or mentally incapacitated individual, or should a dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemicals involved `in any offense be the proximate cause of death of a victim (Sec. 5, R.A. 9165);
5. In case the clandestine laboratory is undertaken or established under the following circumstances:
a. Any phase of the manufacturing process was conducted in the presence or with the help of minor/s
b. Any phase of manufacturing process was established or undertaken within 100 meters of a residential, business, church or school premises.
c. Any clandestine laboratory was secured or protected with booby traps.
d. Any clandestine laboratory was concealed with legitimate business operations. e. Any employment of a practitioner,
chemical engineer, public official or foreigner (Sec. 8, R.A. 9165);
6. In case the person uses a minor or a mentally incapacitated individual to deliver equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia use for dangerous drugs (Sec. 10, R.A. 9165); 7. Any person found possessing any dangerous
drug during a party, or a social gathering or meeting, or in the proximate company of at least two (2) persons (Sec. 13, R.A. 9165); and 8. Possession or having under his/her control
any equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia fit of intended for smoking, consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting or introducing any dangerous drug into the body, during parties, social gatherings or meetings, or in the proximate company of at least 2 persons (Sec. 14, R.A. 9165).
Nature of a buy-bust operation
In People v. Sembrano citing People v. Agulay, this Court held that a buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment which in recent years has been accepted as a valid and effective mode of apprehending drug pushers. Moreover, in a buy- bust operation, the violator is caught in flagrante
delicto and the police officers conducting the same
are not only authorized but also duty-bound to apprehend the violator and consequently search him for anything that may have been part of or
used in the commission of the crime (People v. Cruz
y Cruz, G.R. No. 187047, June 15, 2011).
The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money consummate the buy-bust transaction between the entrapping
officers and the accused. The presentation in court
of the corpus delicti — the body or substance of the crime – establishes the fact that a crime has actually been committed (People v Edgardo Fermin,
G.R. No. 179344, August 3, 2011).
Purpose of using ultra violet powder
The only purpose for treating with ultra-violet powder the buy-bust money to be used in the actual buy-bust operation is for identification, that is, to determine if there was receipt of the buy-bust money by the accused in exchange for the illegal drugs he was selling (People v. Unisa y Islan, G.R.
No. 185721 September 28, 2011).
The failure of the police officers to use ultraviolet powder on the buy-bust money is not an indication that the buy-bust operation was a sham. “The use of initials to mark the money used in a buy-bust operation has been accepted by this Court” (People
v. Amansec, G.R. No. 186131, December 14, 2011).
Necessity of prior surveillance in buy-bust operation
Prior surveillance is not a prerequisite for the validity of an entrapment or a buy-bust operation, there being no fixed or textbook method for conducting one. It is enough that the elements of the crime are proven by credible witnesses and other pieces of evidence (People v. Villahermosa,
G.R. No. 186465 June 1, 2011).
Necessity of coordination with PDEA
Absence of coordination with PDEA does not render the buy bust operation invalid. In People v.
Roa, this Court held that coordination with the
PDEA is not an indispensable requirement before police authorities may carry out a buy-bust operation. While it is true that Section 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 requires the National Bureau of Investigation, PNP and the Bureau of Customs to maintain "close coordination with the PDEA on all drug related matters," the provision does not, by so saying, make PDEA’s participation a condition sine qua non for every buy-bust operation. After all, a buy-bust is just a form of an in flagrante arrest. A buy-bust operation is not invalidated by mere non-coordination with the PDEA (People v. Unisa y Islan, G.R. No. 185721,
September 28, 2011).
NOTE: The Internal Rules and Regulations implementing the law, “is silent as to the consequences of the failure on the part of the law enforcers to seek the authority of the PDEA prior to conducting a buy-bust operation. This silence cannot be interpreted as a legislative intent to make an arrest without the participation of PDEA illegal or evidence obtained pursuant to such an arrest inadmissible” (People v. Sadablab, G.R. No.
186392, January 18, 2012 reiterating People v. Berdadero).
Necessity of presentation of the informant for conviction under R.A. 9165
The presentation of an informant in an illegal drugs case is not essential for the conviction nor is it indispensable for a successful prosecution because his testimony would be merely corroborative and cumulative.” The informant’s testimony is not needed if the sale of the illegal drug has been adequately proven by the prosecution. In People v.
Nicolas, the Court ruled that “police authorities
rarely, if ever, remove the cloak of confidentiality with which they surround their poseur-buyers and informers since their usefulness will be over the moment they are presented in court. Moreover, drug dealers do not look kindly upon squealers and informants. It is understandable why, as much as permitted, their identities are kept secret” (People
v. Amansec, G.R. No. 186131, December 14, 2011).
Objective test in proving buy-bust operation In People v. Doria, the Court laid down the “objective test” in determining the credibility of prosecution witnesses regarding the conduct of buy-bust operations. It is the duty of the prosecution to present a complete picture detailing the buy-bust operation—“from the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to purchase, the promise or payment of the consideration until the consummation of the sale by the delivery of the illegal drug subject of sale” (People v. De la Cruz, G.R. No. 185717, June 8,
2011).
Failure to establish corpus delicti under R.A. 9165
It is settled that the State does not establish the
corpus delicti when the prohibited substance
subject of the prosecution is missing or when substantial gaps in the chain of custody of the prohibited substance raise grave doubts about the authenticity of the prohibited substance presented as evidence in court. Any gap renders the case for the State less than complete in terms of proving the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt
(People v. Relato, G.R. No. 173794, January 18, 2012).
ATTEMPT OR CONSPIRACY, AND